The Instigator
elijah452
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Codename_X
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Codename_X
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 85006
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

elijah452

Pro

Rules:

1.(No links or sources)
- I want to have a logical and reasonable debate, not a "I am right look at this link" sort of one. (Will go into more detail after)

For every expert or graph saying what I propose is bad, there are also ones proposing they are good. Both a no-minimum wage and a high minimum wage have theoretically been successful (With Northern European countries as an example), but using a wage graph from Sweden can't really be applied in America/Canada due to the socioeconomic factors and many other reasons that don't need to be discussed.

2.(Location)
-The debate should be kept primarily in the American and Canadian geographic region as stated before.

3.No trolls/idiots
----------
ARGUMENT: The Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)
The free market should control the wage on a supply/demand system.

1.The minimum wage is not in place to be economically prosperous, but a feel-good law that severely hurts the country and the people working (and not working) under it.

2.The minimum wage is bad for the government, because people who need the money and are still going to illegally work below the minimum wage regardless of what the law says. The only difference is that it will promote breaking the law while also not paying tax.

3. The minimum wage prices many people out of the job market, new immigrants and students may not be worth minimum wage and are figuratively tossed to the side when it comes to the hiring process. One of the biggest problems with this group is that they lack the experience or worthiness to merit hiring at minimum wage levels, but by removing the minimum wage it allows people to work for less money but gain INVALUABLE experience.

4.The cost of many goods and services will drop. (self-explanatory)

5. Hiring two people at $5/H is better than hiring one at $10/H
Codename_X

Con

I accept, thanks to Pro for making this debate. I wish pro good luck in the following rounds.

I will begin briefly with a few rebuttals, then show why no minimum wage is bad for the economy.


"The minimum wage is not in place to be economically prosperous, but a feel-good law that severely hurts the country and the people working (and not working) under it."
This is unsourced, which is unavoidable because of the no links or sources rule... Minimum wage helps keep many off of government welfare because it gives the worker more money to support him/her self.

"The minimum wage is bad for the government, because people who need the money and are still going to illegally work below the minimum wage regardless of what the law says. The only difference is that it will promote breaking the law while also not paying tax."
People who need money are not going to work under minimum wage, but at or above it. Why would someone needing money want to earn less of it, to the point of it becoming illegal. A minimum wage does not prevent anyone from paying taxes.

"The minimum wage prices many people out of the job market, new immigrants and students may not be worth minimum wage and are figuratively tossed to the side when it comes to the hiring process. One of the biggest problems with this group is that they lack the experience or worthiness to merit hiring at minimum wage levels, but by removing the minimum wage it allows people to work for less money but gain INVALUABLE experience."
Many minimum wage jobs are labor, retail, or fast food jobs. These jobs have little requirements, and as the employing company grows, their need for employees grow as well. The experience is not invaluable. Many minimum wage recipients did not have a chance to get a good education, allowing them to move up to a higher paying job. Many minimum wage earners are stuck earning minimum wage for their life.

"The cost of many goods and services will drop. (self-explanatory)"
Yes, the cost of goods and services will drop, but so will many people's abilities to purchase these goods and services. With no minimum wage, many people's buying power would greatly decrease, decreasing sales in all industries, and hurting the economy.

"Hiring two people at $5/H is better than hiring one at $10/H"
Hiring two people at $5/H would most likely put these two people on welfare. Hiring one person at $10/H would avoid this.

If minimum wage was taken away, you would see a mass decrease in the amount of goods/services purchased, and a huge increase in nationwide welfare costs. Overall, no minimum wage would ruin the US economy. This is enough to disprove the resolution.

Off to you, pro
Debate Round No. 1
elijah452

Pro

>"Minimum wage helps keep many off of government welfare because it gives the worker more money to support him/her self."

This is common sense and asking for a source is ridiculous. At the current minimum wage it does help keep people off welfare(the ones that are lucky enough to get a job) but the many that can't find work because of the increased minimum wage are forced to go on welfare. Why do you think many corporations moved out of America? Because why pay somebody a high minimum wage here when you can pay a slaves wage in a poor country. Not to mention lowering the minimum wage will also make nearly everything cheaper.

So like I said before, sure you give one guy a job with this minimum wage but there are 10 other guys that didn't get the job that are now forced to go on welfare.

>"Why would someone needing money want to earn less of it, to the point of it becoming illegal"

Because they need a job and can't find one. Because of the massive supply of workers and the low demand for unskilled work it drives people to work for a lesser wage to become competitive.

>"The experience is not invaluable."

Sigh.....Experience is invaluable. Even at the most basic levels, like following a schedule,money management, paying bills, social relations and leadership skills. Perhaps your wage will be less, but you will gain lifelong experience money can't buy.

>"Many minimum wage recipients did not have a chance to get a good education,"

Mcdonalds is a company with it's prime purpose of serving the customer quick, great tasting food at a low price. Not a school or a college. It's not Mcdonald's fault you didn't get go to go to school and neither is it their problem. Mcdonald's bottom line is to make money. Nothing more nothing less. The truth is not everybody can go to college, not everyone will own two cars and a house. That's the way life works, life is sad, but you can never change it nomatter how much you try and force everyone else into your radical idiotic leftist-communist pipedream. So here's the deal, America has brought in many extremely poor refugees from other countries, and they have an uncontrolled illegal immigration problem from the south.. These people drive the price of labor down while also making everything from food to housing prices skyrocket. So we can either deport them on a massive scale, or lower the minimum wage to reflect a changing America.

> "Many minimum wage earners are stuck earning minimum wage for their life."

Like I said before, not everyone was destined to go to college or have two houses. That was the past and the past is not anymore, these people working minimum wage for life would of most likely also been working a similar wage (or slightly lower) their whole life in their home country.

"but so will many people's abilities to purchase these goods and services. "

Wrong. Depending on the decrease in the wage everything will drop by a relatively huge amount, and with MUCH more people in the workforce (albeit at a lower wage) will stimulate the economy. Because those people that aren't currently working are sitting at home on government money, these people sometimes make less then if they worked at realistic wage level, and with every person on welfare.. It increases inflation and causes powerful economic damage.

>"Hiring two people at $5/H would most likely put these two people on welfare. Hiring one person at $10/H would avoid this."

( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;") You made my case for me, thank you.
1.Hiring TWO people at $5/H will guarantee jobs for them while still collecting assistance, but they will be in the workforce earning money and gaining experience.

2. Hiring ONE person $10/H and forcing the other one to sit on welfare, but only one will be earning money and experience.

You see how the 1# option is better? Both will be working AND collecting welfare, but welfare will scale on the amount of money you are making. So the two people earning $5/H will make about the same if not more then if only one person was working $10/H.. It also gets people into the workforce while lowering the cost of labor(and everything else) AND costing less for the government. So tomorrow if the minimum wage was nationally lowered and everyone working below a certain level will qualify for income assistance that will boost them to a $8-10/H level. The national unemployment rate would be cut in half by the end of the month.

"Overall, no minimum wage would ruin the US economy. This is enough to disprove the resolution."

Why was America so successful up until the 1970's when the minimum wage (if converted into our time) would be a near slaves wage?

Off to you layer boy.
Codename_X

Con

Thanks for your arguments, Pro. I will start with a few rebuttals, then introduce arguments of my own.

Rebuttals

"But the many that can't find work because of the increased minimum wage are forced to go on welfare." ~Pro
Throughout American history, there has been no real connection with increased minimum wage and unemployment. Infact, if you look through the years when the minimum wage was increased, and the employment rates of those years, a majority of the years where minimum wage was increased, there was actually an employment increase in the following 4 years! (would use sources but not aloud).

"Why do you think many corporations moved out of America?" ~Pro
No large corporations have recently moved out of the United States.

"Not to mention lowering the minimum wage will also make nearly everything cheaper." ~Pro
A lowering of the minimum wage would also make less people be able to pay for different products, even if they are cheaper. Different companies that sell products to the lower class would see a decrease in sales, because of the inability of minimum wage earners to pay for these products.

"So like I said before, sure you give one guy a job with this minimum wage but there are 10 other guys that didn't get the job that are now forced to go on welfare." ~Pro
There is no real link between minimum wage raising and unemployment. This becomes evident if you look at the history of minimum wage increases, and the employment levels of the following years.

"Because of the massive supply of workers and the low demand for unskilled work it drives people to work for a lesser wage to become competitive." ~Pro
As companies grow so do their demand for unskilled workers. In the retail industry there is need for retails sails people, cashiers, janitors, etc. In the food industry there is need for waiters, cashiers, cooks (people who put your hamburger together at McDonalds, not chefs), and janitors. In the manufacturing industry there is need for factory workers. In the technology industry, there is need for factory workers, and store workers (ex. apple store employees). As these, and other industries continue to grow, so do demands for unskilled labor. Increasing amounts of people going to college and university also make the supply of these workers smaller.

"Experience is invaluable. Even at the most basic levels, like following a schedule,money management, paying bills, social relations and leadership skills. Perhaps your wage will be less, but you will gain lifelong experience money can't buy." ~Pro
But these skills still do not let these low wage earners get a better job. Most minimum wage recipients did not go to college, and without this further education, many companies would not accept them.


"( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")( V5;" V0;B2; V5;")"
Yep

Overall, throughout history it is evident that a minimum wage and employment levels do not coincide.


Argument I: Welfare Spending

With no minimum wage, many Americans would be forced to work at decreased wages, lowering their income. A result of this is rising National welfare costs. As the wages decrease, more people would have to become reliant on welfare to support them and their families. These welfare costs would put the nation in more debt. This also has a domino effect, where lowering the wages in one, low earning sector, can also greatly lower wages in another sector. Lets say the minimum wage is taken away, a store is forced to sell their products for less, as a decreasing amount of people are able to afford them. The store has to sell them for less, forcing the farm from which the story bought its product to sell their items for less, so the store still buys from them. Decreased income for the farm means decreased spending power, less people would buy tractors, so tractor manufacturing companies would have to pay their workers less, and they would need to get the metal for cheaper, decreasing the amount of money mining companies sell them metal for. All this would greatly lower wages, and increase welfare dependency.

With a decreased income, many Americans would not be able to pay their rent, or buy a house, increasing the homeless population. This would make the government spend more money on government housing. The government would also have to spend more money on Medicaid and other health care programs, as diseases would spread faster as homeless population grows.


Argument II: Stock Market and Buy power

No minimum wage would force many Americans to earn far less. This would greatly hurt the amount of money each low wage earning citizen would have to by different products, and invest in the stock market. This would lead to a significant worsening of the American economy, and stock market. The stock market going down, would make many of investors scared to invest in different companies, and would make a stock market crash, enough to ruin the American economy.


Argument III: Tax Money

With the decreased minimum wage, many families would bring in less money, bringing in less taxes. Minimum wage being taken away would make the quality of life for many of the United States citizens drastically worse. As a result, many American citizens would leave the US, to a country that has a minimum wage. These people would not pay taxes for the US, as they have changed their citizenship. The number of people leaving the country would greatly decrease the amount of tax money going towards the government.


Conclusion

Through increased welfare costs, decreased stock market investments, decreased spending on different products, and less total tax money, it is clear that taking away minimum wage would hurt the American economy. It would create a stock market crash, make many Americans leave the United States, and make many more dependent on welfare. Overall, a no-minimum wage system would be bad economically.

Thanks for reading, I await your response, pro.
Debate Round No. 2
elijah452

Pro

"There is no real link between minimum wage raising and unemployment"

First that's utterly wrong from a common sense ground. Second, personal opinions whether or not they are copied aren't sources, so I am going to ignore all of it.

"United States, and make many more dependent on welfare. Overall, a no-minimum wage system would be bad economically. "

Did you even read ANYTHING I said last round? I already proposed an idea that you might agree with, to cut the minimum wage and introduce a welfare amount proportionate to how much they make and their pay level. Go back and read it.
The rest of your argument is literal copy pasted garbage.
Codename_X

Con

Rebuttals

"First that's utterly wrong from a common sense ground. Second, personal opinions whether or not they are copied aren't sources, so I am going to ignore all of it." ~Pro
It may seem odd from a common since ground, but the past tells that my statement is indeed true. (note: I posted no rebuttal to Pro's second point, as I was unable to understand what Pro was saying).

"Did you even read ANYTHING I said last round? I already proposed an idea that you might agree with, to cut the minimum wage and introduce a welfare amount proportionate to how much they make and their pay level." ~Pro
I actually read everything you wrote last round. The resolution is "The Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)" ~Pro. This has nothing to do with introducing a new welfare system to go along with this taking away of minimum wage. Even so, your system is already in use by the United States government; welfare amounts are already based on the wages of the welfare recipient. No minimum wage would still require an increased national spending on welfare.

"The rest of your argument is literal copy pasted garbage." ~Pro
I did not copy my argument from anywhere. Also, calling it garbage is rather rude, voters should take this into account while voting for who won the "conduct" section.


Pro has forfeited all arguments! Pro failed to rebuttal any of my three arguments introduced last round.
I extend all previous arguments.

Thanks for reading. Pro, I await your response.
Debate Round No. 3
elijah452

Pro

Con has forfeited all his arguments by breaking the rules. I clearly asked for a logical and reasonable debate. CON disregarded that and copied reformulated sentences off the internet to help his argument. Then he lies and tries to cover it up by editing fronts in BOLD and ITALICS. I am not going to debate against copy pasted formulaic responses. Voters should take this into account when voting. Thanks for reading CON.
Codename_X

Con

Pro has asked for a logical and reasonable debate, so that is what I gave him. I copied no sentences off of any website, and I challenge pro to find a website from which I copied anything. Pro is not able to contest my arguments, so as a result, Pro wrongly accuses me of plagiarism.

Pro has broken his own rule. He asked for a logical and reasonable debate, yet Pro has illogically and unreasonably accused me of plagiarism, and copy and pasting. Therefore, Pro forfeits all rounds (however this is to not much use as Pro has forfeited the last two rounds).

Again, I challenge Pro, and the readers if they so wish, to find any website from which I could have possibly plagiarized, copy and pasted, or reformulated sentences from.

Pro has still failed to rebuttal any of my arguments given in round 2. I extend all arguments from round 2.


Thanks for reading, I await Pro's final argument.
Debate Round No. 4
elijah452

Pro

Not going to waste anymore time with people who debate like CON. The arguments that he has given to me (that aren't copied) are illogical and outright ridiculous. He then tries to overwhelm the debate with huge walls text that would take 20-50 individual points to cover. Easily going over the 10,000 word limit. Then when I find out he's been copying arguments he automatically claims I forfeited the argument.

CON previously lost a minimum wage debate with another user and perhaps tried to exhaust his opponent into submission for a win instead of earning it, but what would someone expect with a person that makes claims like.(paraphrasing)

1."Millions will leave America if we lower the minimum wage" (That's the point? Supply/demand)

2."The minimum wage has no negative effects on the economy" (no comment)

3."It's the large companies responsibility to make sure minimum wage workers go to secondary education!" (?what?)

===========

CON uses debate tactics that would drive opponents to give up on the headache and sheer tedium of the debate. You can see it for yourself in his arguments.

1.Act normal

2.Start bombarding opponent with easily counterable yet long and figuratively ambiguous arguments that forces said opponent to skip a bulk of the debate or prematurely hit the 10,000 word limit.(lose-lose situation)

3.Ignore PRO's arguments and paste formulated responses off other websites.

4.Play the victim when opponent doesn't want to talk with you anymore.

5.Free votes from buddies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to restart this debate with someone who actually wants to have an intelligent discussion with me on minimum wage. Not play childish games for virtual internet points.
Codename_X

Con

Rebuttals

"The arguments that he has given to me (that aren't copied) are illogical and outright ridiculous." ~Pro
Firstly, none of my arguments were copied. Second, if my arguments are so illogical and outright ridiculous, why not rebuttal them, instead of falsely accusing me of plagiarism?

"He then tries to overwhelm the debate with huge walls text that would take 20-50 individual points to cover." ~Pro
I did not attempt to overwhelm the debate as suggested by Pro, but instead just to rebuttal Pro's cases, and introduce my own arguments.

"Then when I find out he's been copying arguments he automatically claims I forfeited the argument." ~Pro
I have copied no arguments, and I challenge anyone to try to find a source from which my arguments could have possibly been copied. You forfeited the argument because you offered no rebuttals for the arguments I presented.

"CON previously lost a minimum wage debate with another user and perhaps tried to exhaust his opponent into submission for a win instead of earning it" ~Pro
My previous debates have no relevance in this one. I did not attempt to exhaust my opponent into submission, but instead introduce my own legitimate arguments and rebuttals.

"but what would someone expect with a person that makes claims like.(paraphrasing)
1."Millions will leave America if we lower the minimum wage" (That's the point? Supply/demand)
2."The minimum wage has no negative effects on the economy" (no comment)
3."It's the large companies responsibility to make sure minimum wage workers go to secondary education!" (?what?)" ~Pro
I would like to say I never said, or said anything close to the third claim. If these claims (excluding the third one) were so illogical and unreasonable, why not rebuttal them?

"CON uses debate tactics that would drive opponents to give up on the headache and sheer tedium of the debate. You can see it for yourself in his arguments" ~Pro
I have used no silly debate tactics. Only making rebuttals to my opponents claims, and then writing my own argument.

The below rebuttals were all from the above one. These were some of the "silly" tactics Pro accused me of using.

"1.Act normal" ~Pro
What do you wish I acted like? I am unable to see how acting normal is a dishonorable, illogical, unreasonable, or silly tactic

"2.Start bombarding opponent with easily counterable yet long and figuratively ambiguous arguments that forces said opponent to skip a bulk of the debate or prematurely hit the 10,000 word limit.(lose-lose situation)" ~Pro
If my arguments were easily counterable, why not counter them. My arguments could have been easily countered in the 10,000 character limit if they were indeed easily counterable.

"3.Ignore PRO's arguments and paste formulated responses off other websites." ~Pro
I have thoroughly read all of pro's arguments, and accurately rebuttaled them. I have copied no arguments from other websites. Pro accuses me of plagiarism, but cannot show where I supposedly plagiarised from.

"4.Play the victim when opponent doesn't want to talk with you anymore." ~Pro
My opponent has falsely accused me of plagiarism, called my arguments stupid, and told me I am not debating honorably. I have the right to defend myself under these false accusations.

"5.Free votes from buddies." ~Pro
I do not receive free votes from any friends.

"I am going to restart this debate with someone who actually wants to have an intelligent discussion with me on minimum wage. Not play childish games for virtual Internet points." ~Pro
I did want to have an intelligent discussion, but because of Pro's false accusations, this has become impossible. I did not play any childish games while debating, and I debate on this website because I enjoy debating, not for an increased elo score.

-----

As Pro has failed to rebuttal any of my points, I extend arguments.

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and debating with me. I also thank the readers for reading and the voters for voting.

I challenge anyone who for some reason wrongly believes I plagiarized to find from which source I did so from.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Tashasays// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote on arguments is more than sufficient, though just a note to the voter, you don't have to be exhaustive in your analysis of the debate. Conduct is sufficient, though only barely. Voters are allowed some discretion on this point, but you should be justifying this with clear violations and not just perceived rudeness.

Note: If the reporter has nothing to add, then further reports will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
So long as those votes meet the standards, they are allowed. Clear signs of bias are clear reasons for removal.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
OK If Tashasays is allowed to revenge vote my posts then I will do the same.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Tashasays// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote on arguments is more than sufficient, though just a note to the voter, you don't have to be exhaustive in your analysis of the debate. Conduct is sufficient, though only barely. Voters are allowed some discretion on this point, but you should be justifying this with clear violations and not just perceived rudeness.

Note: I really feel the need to address this: guys, you really need to stop using the reporting system as a way to deal with voters you don't like. If the RFD itself is insufficient, it will be removed on that basis. If the RFD is not insufficient, it won't. Bias can result in insufficiency, but just because the two of you have a history does not mean that I'll be removing every vote each of you posts on the other's debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
You're angry that I beat you in a debate so you stalk me and oppose all my debates.

You and Codename_X have very similar debating styles. To exhaust your opponent into submission with a barrage of opinionated blanket statements. All the while ignoring arguments you can't respond to.

Let me repeat myself.
The minimum wage was not introduced as something to increase economic power or productivity. It was done so out of empathy and emotions for the lower working class.

I can be like Tashasays and Codename_X and provide right wing propaganda "sources" , but I am not lowering myself to that level. As I said in this debate. For every expert or graph saying what I propose is bad, there are also ones proposing they are good.

I wanted to have a logical and thought provoking debate on the minimum wage, but what I got was a bunch of leftist mouth-breathers who couldn't shred even an ounce of logic to counter my arguments.

Instead my opponent dodges most of my arguments while providing brain dead responses for the others.

Let's look at CONS very first "counter" to my first argument.

"Minimum wage helps keep many off of government welfare because it gives the worker more money to support him/her self."

Does CON not see the huge oxymoron in his statement? The lower the minimum wage goes the easier it for people that aren't worth said wage to find jobs. If a person was REALLY worth $10 an hour they would be paid that already, but they aren't. Companies are forced to pay more for their employees so the extra costs get dispersed among everyone. A glorified law disguised as a sudo-robinhood wealth distribution system.

CON still didn't even address my argument and he merely skips it.

But seriously look at his counters to my arguments, they are indirect,indecisive and more opinionated blanket statements.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
Pro argues that minimum wage is bad for the economy because 1) people will work illegally for less money 2) a higher minimum wage will make those without experience affordable to employers 3) the cost of goods and services will drop 4) 2 workers making $5/hr is better than 1 worker making $10/hr.
Con's rebuttal is that 1) A higher minimum wage will keep those who are employed off welfare. 2) most minimum wage jobs do not require much skill or experience 3) the cost of goods and services will be off-set by limited buying power. 4) If both people making $5/hr are still on welfare, there is no gain.
Pro asserts that more people are employed when there is no minimum wage. It will also lower prices. He then states that minimum wage earners would be in a similar situation in their birth countries, implying that all minimum wage earners are immigrants.
Con's rebuttal states that there is not a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. He then provides evidence, but no source as per the rules of the debate. He then argues that without a minimum wage, welfare spending would go up and buying power would go down. As companies sell less product, they are forced to compensate other ways, affecting everyone in the country including stock markets. Tax collections would go down as people earn less money and leave the country to find higher pay for similar work.
Pro states that there is a link between minimum wage and unemployment, but does not prove it. Since he has the BoP, the point goes to con. He does not address any other of the points made by con, thus he loses those points as well. No points are made in round 3 or after.
For conduct, pro loses by accusing con of lying, but does not submit proof in round 4. In round 5, pro brings up an outside debate stating, "con previously lost a minimum wage debate with another user and perhaps tried to exhaust his opponent into submission for a win instead of earning it." This is a clear violation.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Tashasays// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: At the beginning, both pro and con made reasonable arguments for their positions. However, in round 3, pro lost his composure but pro did not, therefore pro wins for better conduct. Pro also continued to present a well organized argument for the rest of the debate while pro did not. The more convincing argument goes to con.

[*Reason for emoval*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot decide the arguments point allocation without examining the arguments themselves. Merely stating that one side was better organized is not enough. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply say that one side lost their composure, as there's no clear conduct violations in the round that the voter mentions.
************************************************************************
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
The fact that you say that shows how out of touch with reality you are. I will excuse your behavior if you are of young age, but this is intolerable from an adult. Such blanketed generalizations make this site (and it's users) look bad. I sure hope you aren't old enough to vote.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
See, that is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Why is it laughable? It's not my opinion. It's a conclusion from a scientific study. If you think it is wrong, prove it. Show me that the study is flawed or that a different study came to a different conclusion, but just saying you disagree leaves us nowhere. How exactly can one respond to, "nah-uh"?
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
You don't care yet you make a big deal about it.

"in open, honest and intellectual discussions about controversial subjects"

Said the guy who said

"studies also found that other factors such as higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence."

Yeahhhhhhhhh I am not going to respect you if you make statements like this and when you try to source said statements with articles from the guardian. It's laughable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
elijah452Codename_XTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments