The Instigator
BobTurner
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rasputin45
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Minimum wage should be raised (Pro), abolished (Con)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 48961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

BobTurner

Con

Pro will argue that the minimum wage should be increased, and Con will argue that it should be abolished.

In round 1, Pro will give his opening arguments, and in Round 5 will post "no round as agreed upon." Failure to do so will result in a 7-point loss.
Rasputin45

Pro

So, it is my duty to argue that the minimum wage should not in fact be abolished but instead should be increased. Yet it has not fallen to the instigator to set a descriptive meaning behind this incredibly vague title.
"Pro will argue that the minimum wage should be increased, and Con will argue that it should be abolished." Sadly, my opponent could have meant that I have to argue that the minimum wage should be increased in USA, Norway or Zambia. But it is very obvious that he meant in the Russian Federation.

In round one, I shall argue that the minimum wage should not be abolished anywhere/ in general. In round two I shall give arguments for the increase of the minimum wage in Russia plus refutations of his arguments. Then, in round three, I shall argue further against abolition plus even more refutations. In round 4 I shall argue further why we should raise the minimum wage, in Russia plus refutations. In round 5, I shall place my hand over my heart and pledge myself to the phrase, 'No round as agreed upon'
Now let's start.

We should not abolish the minimum wage. Why? First let us see why we have a minimum wage to begin with; to fight poverty. We want to abolish extreme poverty because essentially it is a form of slavery. In LEDCs, people work for exploitive companies from the west. Like Nike for example. They exploited labourers in china, vietnam and indonesia by paying them less than minimum wage. When people work for poor wages, they can't possibly get a better job or pay for school.
There are companies in the USA unafraid of paying low wages to workers, like Walmart, the company that pays $9.00 hourly wage; Imagine what they'd do if it was less. Yet people still work at Walmart, they need a job don't they. I've heard the argument that the minimum wage makes people more comfortable with not working hard at University, because they can get a decent wage for little effort. Yet this argument fails to realise that we need people doing the low end jobs; our society depends on the labourers who pick up the rubbish bins and if we are going to give them an unsustainable wage, we might as well just repeal the thirteenth amendment, get all our slaves back and make them do the low end jobs.

Think about it: If theres a person who is on benefits but finds a job that he can do, then he will go down and get it but if it pays a really low wage then he might as well stay on benefits and we have one less working person.
Also consider this, if a persons best effort gets them a low pay, then THAT's what will encourage him to work less.
Debate Round No. 1
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Rasputin45

Pro

Rasputin45 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTurner

Con

BobTurner forfeited this round.
Rasputin45

Pro

Look, here's the deal mr Voter. I only gave an argument to why my opponent proposition shouldn't be realised, but didn't give one to why my proposition should be realised. Even so, my opponent didn't give an argument at all so you should still vote for me.

...Oh yeah

NO RRROUND AS AGRRREED UPON
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
What ever happened to bobturner.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
I obviously meant that the comment section is not part of the debate lol.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
Ok, I get your point, I just keep forgetting to put my sources in the argument, I apologize. But first, explain how the comment section is not part of the comment section. I thought the comment section was the comment section.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Voters are to take your sources into account, but not the comment section. The comment section is not part of the comment section. Posting anything in the comment section as part of your argument or performance is against site rules.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
I chose to put my sources in the comment section because the voters are meant to take it into account. One of the votes is who had the most reliable sources. They can judge by checking the sources.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Also, please don't post your sources in the comment section. Voters should not take those into account.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
It was a typo lol. Couldn't you see the amount of rounds?
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
Instigator, why did you mislead me to think we had 5 rounds. Now I feel stupid for talking about a round three and four and five. Then again I can still do round three because you said "no round as agreed upon" on round 5 not 3. HAH.
No votes have been placed for this debate.