The Instigator
Valladarex
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
xxXChelseaXxx
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Minimum Wage Should be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,442 times Debate No: 32557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Valladarex

Pro

Hello, Chelsea. I saw your argument for minimum wage. I would like to debate this issue with you.

As a supporter for the abolition of minimum wage, I think we could have a good conversation on the topic.

I will give you the first word this round, if you choose to accept.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con


I thank Valladarex for the opportunity to debate a highly contentious topic. While it unusual to go first in a debate where I technically don’t have the burden of proof, I will have a chance to refute Pro’s argument in the next round. I will provide some arguments as to why Minimum wage should be implemented, which is slightly different from the resolution as I have the burden of proof in this instance. This is to outline my side of the argument, rather than set the tone of the argument. Anyway, I’ll stop prattling on…



Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society


Young, a working parent often not only have the demands of taking care of themself or his or her partner, but also a child/children. Evidently, it is not hard to imagine that some of the poorest people in America are young, working parents because they essentially support three people in a developed nation (higher standard of living costs than an undeveloped nation).


“Analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey reveals that the workers potentially affected by a minimum wage increase are mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families. If the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise. The vast majority (80%) of workers affected are adults age 20 and above. Twenty-six percent of these workers are parents, and as a result over 7.3 million children of low-wage workers would see their parents’ income increase if the federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008.1 From a historical perspective, this demographic portrait is consistent with the make-up of workers benefiting from the last federal minimum wage increase” (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998).


Clearly, the minimum wage would vastly improve the situation for these parents, in turn dealing with the poverty to some extent. This is the fundamental reason to employ a minimum wage: to prevent people from living below the poverty line because businesses will pay people virtually nothing if they are allowed to. If people refuse to work for such a low pay, the business will simply not employ them or look for someone whom will (overseas if need be). It isn’t like there are only a handful of people whom a business can employ to do minimum wage work for them.



Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect


In theory, businesses would pay what they thought an employee was worth, so the incentive would be to work harder to get payed more. Keep in mind that this argument is about minimum wage, not high-end wage negotiation where there are few other potential employees due to the qualifications required. This theory is skewered in practice due to an effort called ‘the Anchoring effect’.


The Anchoring effect occurs when someone bases the validity or worth of something by comparing other things of a similar nature within the vicinity (and is a fallacy because it works off relativity rather than objectivity). To put this into context, there is no way to objectively gauge what a person’s working time is worth (i.e. what is a person’s time worth if he or she is stacking boxes?). Arbitrary standards will be set, and will be (unfairly) set by the business (as there are no restrictions on them AND there is a conflict of interest for the business, the conflict of interest inciting exploitation because the bottom line of running a business is to make money). But here is where the fallacy comes in. Say I’m packing boxes full of clothing and getting payed $0.5 an hour. I’m doing a better job than the guy next to me, who is getting payed $0.3 an hour. So, logically, it would seem that I’m getting payed extra for my extra effort, right? This is below the amount necessary to sustain my life, but I’m told to ‘work harder’ if I want to get anymore pay. In reality, the business has set a very low standard, exploiting people by use of the anchoring effect and paying them less than what a person who sees the situation objectively would demand. This is another reason businesses must have minimum wages set by a separate entity (one which can see the situation objectively and can set objective standards, otherwise the business will set low wage rates which are unsustainable in a developed world (and make people believe that the rates are fair).


To demonstrate exploitation in action (not necessarily the Anchoring effect in all instances), in 2006, “the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker (working 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600. Although the federal poverty line is an inadequate measure of the income needed to support a family, this comparison highlights the severe insufficiency of the current minimum wage” (Fisher 1999).



I’ve outlined the crux of my argument and an important correlation. I don’t think I should go much further because in this argument, seeing that I’m Con, I’m supposed to counter-argue the arguments of my opponent.


I will await your response, Valladarex.


References


Bernstein, Jared and John Schmitt. 1998. “Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-1997 Minimum Wage Increase.” Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.


Fisher, Gordon. 1999. “Income (In-) Adequacy? The Official Poverty Line, Possible Changes and Some Historical Lessons.” Community Action Digest. Vol. 1, No. 1.


Debate Round No. 1
Valladarex

Pro

Rebuttals:

Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society:

"Clearly, the min. wage would vastly improve the situation for these parents, in turn dealing with the poverty to some extent. This is the fundamental reason to employ a min. wage: to prevent people from living below the poverty line because businesses will pay people virtually nothing if they are allowed to." If people refuse to work for such a low pay, the business will simply not employ them or look for someone whom will (overseas if need be)."

In response to how much this increase would actually help in poverty, I think the 2005 Current Population Survey shows differently (not sure why you quote a 1998 source). This first thing I'd like to point out is that 1.9 million workers were making min. wage or below it. (1) The next is that these workers fall into 2 categories. "The majority of min. wage-earners fall into the first category: 53 percent of those earning $5.15 or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24. The remainder are 25 years of age or older." This is important because, as you said, "the fundamental reason to employ a min. wage: to prevent people from living below the poverty line".

For young adults (ages 16-24) working on minimum wage, "only 17 percent live at or below the Poverty line, while 65 percent enjoy family incomes over twice the Poverty line". (2) If one does the math, the amount of these young workers living below the poverty line is about 1.9x10^6 x .54 x .17 = 174,420 younger people.

For the older workers (ages 25+), "Just 23 percent live in Poverty, while 45 percent have incomes over twice the Poverty line." This totals to about 205,390 older people.

In total, the amount of people in poverty (in 2005) one would hypothetically* help from a raise in min. wage would be 379,810 people. Not quite as impressive as the 14.5 million people not working on min. wage that your source says will help. Of course, these 14.5 million people aren't the ones that need the help. It's those min. wage, less than minimum wage, and unemployed workers(in 2005, 8.5 million) (3) that need our help the most.
*I say hypothetical because this doesn't include the amount that may potentially get fired from no longer being profitable by the company. I will get into this later.

Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect

"If people refuse to work for such a low pay, the business will simply not employ them or look for someone whom will (overseas if need be). It isn’t like there are only a handful of people whom a business can employ to do min. wage work for them."

The problem with this argument is that businesses can already outsource jobs, and do it commonly. The only difference with a min. wage is that, instead of the people making the refusal decision themselves, the government does it for them. In fact, the min. wage encourages outsourcing! When the government puts an artificially high wage, the price to hire people in Americans for low-skilled work becomes more expensive than in other countries. Thus, businesses take their job opportunities elsewhere. To combat poverty, a less-than min. wage job is better than no job at all.

"The Anchoring effect occurs when someone bases the validity or worth of something by comparing other things of a similar nature within the vicinity. To put this into context, there is no way to objectively gauge what a person’s working time is worth (i.e. what is a person’s time worth if he or she is stacking boxes?)."

This example assumes that there is no way to objectively gauge what a person's working time is worth. To answer how much the box stacker is worth, an employer could look at how much the company profits from the worker being there, and how much the company makes without the worker.

"Arbitrary standards will be set, and will be (unfairly) set by the business. But here is where the fallacy comes in. Say I’m packing boxes full of clothing and getting payed $0.5 an hour. I’m doing a better job than the guy next to me, who is getting payed $0.3 an hour. So, logically, it would seem that I’m getting payed extra for my extra effort, right?"

This standard could have been set by one company, and other companies could copy this as well. Over time, the market sets standards for how much a job is worth. This is how it works with every job that pays above just above the min. wage. This is how it would work with ones below it. One thing is for certain though. The government most likely didn't get the value correct with min. wage.

The idea that a business has no restrictions is simply false. I agree that businesses want to maximize their profits. The problem is, there is competition between businesses for the employment of these individuals. If the box stacker employer wants to set their salary to $.5/hour, then another company nearby could see this and set their salary for a low-skill job at $1/hour and still make a high profit. This would incentivize people to work for this company, as opposed to the lower paying business. In turn, the box stacking employer would need to increase wages to be competitive with the others. This process will continue until the price to hire the employee is just under the amount of money the employer would produce. To think it would be <$1 is absurd.

" In reality, the business has set a very low standard, exploiting people by use of the anchoring effect and paying them less than what a person who sees the situation objectively would demand. This is another reason businesses must have min. wages set by a separate entity".

How is $7.25 an objective standard for all jobs in the country? Who is the government to decide which is a "fair" salary for a job? The min. wage doesn't take into account how much a person's value is for any specific job. As a result, those jobs which would only profit from employing individuals with salaries below the min. wage can't hire. They would lose money. Also, the reason why so many low-skilled jobs have salaries above the min. wage is because the market can set fair salaries for a specific job. If what you said was the case, the vast majority of unskilled jobs would be at the min. wage in order to maximize profits.

" To demonstrate exploitation in action (not necessarily the Anchoring effect in all instances), in 2006, “the earnings of a full-time min. wage worker with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600."
This assumes that the only one parent is working. In actuality, for older workers (25+) on min. wage, "They have an average family income of $33,606 per year." Also, just 23% of these workers live in poverty.(2)

Arguments against Min. Wage

Unemployment:

The biggest problem with min. wage is it hurts the very people it's trying to help. When an employer can't afford to pay the min wage, and the potential employee wants the job anyway, then there is a loss in a desired job. "Years ago, unskilled youth cleaned windshields and checked oil at gas stations, showed people to their seats in movie theaters, and bagged groceries. Many of those kinds of jobs disappeared as the minimum wage rose. Teenage unemployment, especially among blacks, has been a scandal ever since."(4)

The video above explains this in better detail.



I would like to know your answer to the question in the video: Why not raise minimum wage to $20/hr? Why not 100?


I'll continue my arguments next round, as I ran out of room.

Back to you.


1.http://www.bls.gov...
2. http://www.heritage.org...
3.http://www.bls.gov...
4.http://reason.com...

xxXChelseaXxx

Con

My original arguments are paraphrased in italics to give context

Your video + Unemployment (as you tied them together):

Your video makes the “key observation” that minimum wage increase is a problem. However, a minimum wage increase is NOT part of the resolution. You see, having a minimum wage is vastly different from increasing an existing minimum wage; I only have to argue for keeping a minimum wage. The minimum wage I’m arguing for will be designed to prevent businesses from exploiting employees (i.e. paying employees well below the market average). Regardless, I’m arguing for a minimum wage that would be below the market average, hence making the key point (core of the argument) in this video irrelevant.

(Defending my argument) Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society:

“(not sure why you quote a 1998 source).”

The principles of good economic practice should remain timeless.

Your mathematical calculations from the source you provided appears to be accurate and the sources seem legitimate (not that I would be the perfect candidate to judge the latter). However, the fundamental flaw of your argument is showcased in your statement: In total, the amount of people in poverty (in 2005) one would hypothetically* help from a raise in min. wage would be 379,810 people.” Again, I am not arguing for a raise in minimum wage, I am arguing to keep a minimum wage. My opponent should be arguing against having a minimum wage, not arguing against raising the minimum wage.

I know that my rebuttal is sparse considering what I am responding to, but I believe the flaw I have highlighted sufficiently counters this argument.

(Defending my argument) Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect:

If people refuse to work … whom will (overseas if need be). … employ to do min. wage work for them. “The problem with this argument is that businesses can already outsource jobs, and do it commonly.”

“In fact, the min. wage encourages outsourcing!”

Finding people overseas that are not only willing to work for a below min. wage, training them and then setting-up a place for them to work where regulations are lax is evidently difficult. Are businesses willing to spend large amounts of money and time to do all these things just to pay someone less money? Certainly, small and medium businesses will have little chance pursuing this avenue – they simply don’t have multiple millions.

“To combat poverty, a less-than min. wage job is better than no job at all.”

Having a less than min. wage job is illegal in a country with min. wage. Basically, having a min. wage forces businesses to pay above the poverty line, which does not necessary mean that they will not generate profits (and should not be generating profits if they can’t pay above the poverty line, as these are slave labour rates).

“The only difference with a min. wage is that, instead of the people making the refusal decision themselves, the government does it for them.”

This is a good thing.
1. This prevents businesses from driving down the minimum market wage to slave wage levels.
2. Unemployment benefits can be given to those whom are actively seeking a job

The result? A small amount from taxation is given to those whom are looking for jobs in order to prevent below market wage rates (which can lead to slave wage rates, rates that are well below living standard costs) as well as sustain their lives.

The Anchoring effect occurs … (i.e. what is a person’s time worth if he or she is stacking boxes?)."This example assumes that there is no way to objectively gauge what a person's working time is worth... an employer could look at how much the company profits from the worker being there, and how much the company makes without the worker.”

There are far too many variables that generate business revenue to simply see a difference in revenue between the worker being there and not being there. For example, other employees may not work as hard whilst the new worker is there. Other employees might be sabotaging the plant covertly. Conflict between employees that is covert may have employees gossiping about the conflict rather than fully committing themselves to work. You could estimate what an employee is generating by way of seeing what he or she is producing. However, what is an acceptable amount of produce? The only way to measure this is to compare the amount produced by one worker to the amount produced by another worker. Therefore, not an objective value is being set, but rather one based on the relative production of employees. This conclusion is consistent with the Anchoring fallacy.

Arbitrary standards will be set, and will be (unfairly) set by the business ... getting payed $0.5 an hour... who is getting payed $0.3 an hour. So, logically, it would seem that I’m getting payed extra for my extra effort, right? “This standard could have been set by one company, and other companies could copy this as well... The government most likely didn't get the value correct with min. wage.”

Okay, the standard can be set by the competition between the companies. Afterwards, the minimum wage can be set to below the market value (but not too far below, otherwise it is self-defeating). This ensures that the market wage rates are not lowered further, yet retains an acceptable level for businesses to generate profits.

“The problem is, there is competition between businesses for the employment of these individuals.”

When there is a highish unemployment rate, it is the other way around. With an unemployment rate of America’s (7.7%, Feb 2013), people will be trying to simply become employed, rather than negotiate wage rates. This is exactly the kind of scenario which businesses will take advantage to exploit the worker. How? Businesses know that jobs are hard to come by at the moment, hence businesses are the ones that dictate prices. There needs to be a floor price (min. wage) which will stop businesses from dropping their wage rates too low.

“How is $7.25 an objective standard for all jobs in the country? Who is the government to ... If what you said was the case, the vast majority of unskilled jobs would be at the min. wage in order to maximize profits.”

Minimum wage can be set lower than the market average. $7.25 does not have to be the rate, and should not be the rate if it is higher than market average. In fact, the minimum wage could be lower than currently the lowest pay. It is designed to stop businesses from setting significantly lower than market wage rates, or to slowly lower the average market rates towards slave labour rates.

... “the earnings of a full-time min. wage worker with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600. “This assumes that the only one parent is working. In actuality, for older workers (25+) on min. wage, "They have an average family income of $33,606 per year." Also, just 23% of these workers live in poverty.(2)”

Unless I’ve misread this, 33,606 (2 average working wages) divided by 2 = 16803, which is barely above the poverty line and is the average wage for a working parent. That means, close to 50% of working parents fall below the poverty line of 2006 in terms of wage income (and that’s not accounting for inflation where the poverty line should in theory increase).

In summary, the problem with my opponent’s arguments thus far are that they either assume that the resolution requires Con to defend against an increase in minimum wage (perhaps even that abolishing the min. wage does not mean lowering the min. wage), or that minimum wage could not be lowered to a below market value. While the min. wage does have inherent problems (off-shore business ventures, business competition), these do not outweigh the benefit of preventing the lowering of already low wages.

Debate Round No. 2
Valladarex

Pro

Video + Unemployment

"Your video makes the “key observation” that min. wage increase is.... the key point in this video irrelevant."

I was responding to your first argument, which was based on a raise in min. wage. I wouldn't have talked about any raise in min. wage had you not made your argument dependent on it at the start.

In the video, he makes the observation that any min. wage is a problem. As he said, "I don't think the gov. should have any min. wage, because it restricts the freedom of contract."

The freedom of contract is a very important idea. Through freedom of contract, individuals entail a general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract or not, and on which terms to contract. The freedom of contract causes mutually beneficial agreements, while minimum wage is a forceful decision.

Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society

"The principles of good economic practice should remain timeless."

I was pointing out that your sources were from 1998 and 1999, and the data was from 2005 and 2006. This doesn't make sense.

"I know that my rebuttal... counters this argument."

You didn't counter the idea that the 14.5 million who earn above the min. wage aren't the ones that need help the most, it's those who make the min., under, or nothing that need it. The number you attempt to help in poverty from min. wage (380k) is much less than the number that could be helped without it (millions of unemployed).

Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect

"Finding people overseas that are not only willing... small and medium businesses will have little chance pursuing this."

You bring up the point that small and medium businesses can't outsource jobs. This is important, because these are the very ones that are hurt most by min. wage. It's not the big business owners that will lose their jobs, it's those that can't afford to pay for gov-generated, high cost workers.

Nonetheless, more outsourcing is a direct result from creating high-cost workers in America. You conceded to this in your summary.

"Having a less than min. wage job is illegal in a country with min. wage... can’t pay above the poverty line, as these are slave labour rates."

Why shouldn't businesses generate profits if they can't pay above the poverty line, when the people accept these wages? People would only accept the wages if they believe this is their best option. Whether it be for some extra money, the experience, deciding if the career is right for them, networking opportunities, apply classroom knowledge, gain confidence, or transition into a higher job, they should be able to make the decision without the government telling them no. This is about having the freedom to make decisions for oneself. Why do you think you could choose for them better?

"1. This prevents businesses from driving down the min. market wage to slave wage levels.
2. Unemployment benefits can be given to those whom are actively seeking a job"

What prevents businesses from driving min. wage to levels that people don't want is the fact people would not take the job, if there is a better option. You claim that unemployment benefits can be given to those whom are actively seeking job. I think you mean seeking a min. wage or above paying job, as you prevent lower paying jobs from being available.

Also, I'm not debating against giving unemployment benefits in this debate. In fact, we could still give unemployment benefits while having no min. wage. People need not take a less than min. wage paying job if unemployment is a better option. They could wait until they get a job that pays above the poverty line, if they need such a job to live. For those that don't, such as many young workers, they could take those less than min. wage jobs for all the benefits that come with it.

"There are far too many variables that generate business revenue.... This conclusion is consistent with the Anchoring fallacy."

I think this is irrelevant as you concede that a standard can be set between companies. But when there is normal work conditions, prices could be gauged for the entire industry. Of course it won't be perfect, but it's better than a flat rate across all industries for all jobs, which min. wage creates.

"Okay, the standard can be set by the competition... level for businesses to generate profits."

What ensures wage rates are not lowered further beyond what people want is decided by the people themselves. They choose whether to join or not. They don't need to take job if they have better options. Acceptable levels for profit generation is set through competition between companies.

"When there is a highish unemployment rate... There needs to be a floor price which will stop businesses from dropping their wage rates too low."

When there is high unemployment, the worst thing the gov. could do is prevent job creation. This is what min. wage does. Your solution to business exploitation is preventing people from taking jobs by their own choice. This solution causes more unemployment. Causing zero income is not a solution to poverty.

Who determines what unacceptable rates are, are the people that either take the job or don't. As I said, unemployment benefits could be given to those who couldn't afford to have such low paying jobs. Not taking the job is a bargaining chip for the employee.

"Min. wage can be set lower than the market average... the average market rates towards slave labour rates."

The problem with min. wage is it's a flat rate across all industry sectors for every job. The market average varies depending on the job. For example, the market average for windshield cleaners at gas stations would be much lower than many jobs that are currently at min. wage. Exploitation of those higher paying jobs would hypothetically occur either way. What actually stops this exploitation is a person's ability to choose whether to work or not. Also, the lowest rate would be min. wage. That isn't helpful.

Not even a minimum wage of $.01 would be useful because people wouldn't take the job without a good reason. People would not take wage rates significantly below market wage rates. Slave labor rates wouldn't form. The only way this would form is if people decided to take this because it is their best option. If it truly was the best option for them, then let them take it. The gov. shouldn't prevent people from taking any willful decision that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

"Unless I’ve misread this, 33,606... to 50% of working parents fall below the poverty line of 2006 in terms of wage income."

The poverty line for families is not in proportion with individuals. "Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the min. wage live above the Poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the Poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. The average older min. wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution."(2) My statistic of 23% stands.

Alternatives to Min. Wage

The biggest contention you have made is that exploitation will be a bigger problem without minimum wage. There are various solutions that solve the issues min. wage wishes to, without the huge drawbacks. These include the basic income, guaranteed minimum income, refundable tax credit, and collective bargaining.

Conclusion

The benefits of minimum wage do not outweigh the disadvantages it brings. If your goal is to help people get out of poverty, consider the options I gave. The min. wage hurts more in poverty than it helps. It prevents them from getting the benefits of having any job. It takes away the benefits one would get from an internship, while also getting pay.

Poverty and unemployment are major issues in our country today. I hope I have showed you and anyone who read this that individual freedom can make things better.

Vote Pro

1. http://www.heritage.org...

xxXChelseaXxx

Con


I forfeit.


I see no point in asking for another lap when the odour emitting from the horse’s carcass is driving the spectators away. I have missed the point on occasions and have digressed into irrelevancies on others. I think if I had adequately prepared my argument, I would have a much stronger case, possibly a winning one. Nevertheless, I wish to apologise for my diluted arguments and offer congratulations to my opponent for bettering me in this debate. I also wish to thank my opponent for exposing the holes in my arguments so that I may not hold onto them erroneously into the future.


Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HellaryG 3 years ago
HellaryG
That's somewhat true..In connection,one might think working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds and so forth is simple, but it isn't as easy as one might think. A number of reduced wage health results have been found which exact a physical toll on the people in these kinds of careers. Resource for this article: https://personalmoneynetwork.com...
Posted by davidw 3 years ago
davidw
Well, there are some obvious arguments for the minimum wage that recognizes the costs outlined here - simply because it is the only practical political way to bring so much income to the lower classes. And, although the exact numbers of people on the minimum wage are small, it is very likely that the minimum wage is a starting wage - and the scale of wages starts there. Raising the minimum also raises many of the other wages - because firms must pay employees higher wages to keep the higher skilled ones.

I think the costs are small because Valadrex was assuming that the employers were competitively efficient, and thus took every increase in labor costs to either reduce employment or output or both. On the other hand, I think employers may react by cutting costs elsewhere or raising prices so that overall employment is about the same. How else can one explain the huge advances of industrial economies along with rising minimum wages? Most recent studies don't find much reduction in employment from minimum wages.
Posted by JuliusMaximus 3 years ago
JuliusMaximus
Eternal respect to Con for her forfeit, it was truthful and honest.
Posted by A-Likely-Story 3 years ago
A-Likely-Story
Lotus, what makes a wage fair?
Posted by LotusNG 3 years ago
LotusNG
Anjou, how is working and expecting a pay that is remotely fair "sucking on the teat of the government"?
Posted by Anjou 3 years ago
Anjou
@Controverter: what the hell are you talking about? Minimum wage most certainly isn't a fundamental human right. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is a fundamental human right. THE ABILITY TO BREATH, is a fundamental human right. Sucking on the teat of the government, however, is not.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
It's hard to argue against an argument so backed by empirics. =)
Posted by Valladarex 3 years ago
Valladarex
I wish to thank my opponent for a fun and thought provoking debate.
Posted by Valladarex 3 years ago
Valladarex
Sounds good!
Posted by xxXChelseaXxx 3 years ago
xxXChelseaXxx
I'll probably take this debate; just give me a day or so to gather my argument. Thanks for the opportunity, I hope we have something to look forward to now!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Sadly, due to forfeit reasons. Real shame too.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: In conceding the argument so nicely, I give con the conduct point but pro the argument. Sources seem pretty one sided.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, but it was an honorable forfeit where she didnt try to drag this thing out any longer then it had to
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: the better debate goes to Pro on this one. I am glad that Con acknowledges this and hopefully round two will come around!
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter votebomb Controverter.
Vote Placed by Controverter 3 years ago
Controverter
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: NOT A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT FOR ABOLISHING IT WAS EVEN GIVEN! I don't care if con forfeited, it's a really filthy and fu?ked up thing to think you have the f*cking right to pay someone so little they can barely survive. I've seen poverty first hand, some of my family have lived in it. Pro is a filthy piece of sh*t to deny minimum wage and I hate him with all my heart and soul for it.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
ValladarexxxXChelseaXxxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited