The Instigator
ConceptEagle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Raise Minimum Wage

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 2 votes the winner is...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,982 times Debate No: 70943
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (2)

 

ConceptEagle

Pro

The minimum wage should be raised to $16.97 or more. According to the Huffington Post, the amount of money a full time worker needs to be paid in order to survive in the cheapest county in the US is $10.20.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Varrack

Con

Thank you ConceptEagle for instigating this debate. Pro has the burden of proof for challenging the status quo and making the positive claim. As Con, my job is to cast doubt on his case. I will present my own arguments and a rebuttal.

C1) Employment

A higher minimum wage would increase the financial burden of companies to support their workers. Because companies will need to pay their employees more, some will be forced to lay off more workers and cut job opportunities for future laborers. More layoffs would lead to higher unemployment, with less money circulating through the economy. There is a positive correlation between higher minimum wage and unemployment rates [http://dailycaller.com...]

C2) Incentive

Workers who are being paid with a lower minimum wage will be more prompted to work harder and receive more education in order to get a higher paying job and climb the income ladder than those who are being paid at a higher minimum wage. Burger flippers will have more of an incentive to look for a better job if they are just being paid at $7.25 versus being paid at $10.10. Better jobs and more education will not only help the lower and middle classes but the economy as well, since jobs contribute to the labor market and further education will bring more money into colleges. A higher minimum wage prevents workers from wanting to moving up, since they are being paid more at a lower job.

R1) Life necessities

Pro claims that a higher minimum wage will provide more money for workers to live on and to survive on better. As mentioned above, raising it will cause less workers to actually find the job they are looking for to survive in their country. If the minimum wage is raised, less workers will be motivated to move up and earn even more money for their family to live off of. If people need to earn the necessary money, then we need to give them motivation to do it, not spoonfeed them. A minimum wage of $16.97 will encourage people to not move up, but instead be a burden for businesses.
Debate Round No. 1
ConceptEagle

Pro

R > R1 & C2) Life’s Necessities



A budget of $15k a year($7.25 an hr) is extremely tight, while requiring government assistance and public generosity(services such as soup kitchens and church feasts, where meals are free) in order to afford cheap costs of living. Raising it to $21k per year($10.10 an hour), would still not allow the minimum wage earner to afford any cheap forms of luxury -the incentive to get a better job in order to afford more things would still exist and would not decay. It would increase independence and possibly standard of living and or efficiency. Hence, raising the minimum wage to an amount that is closer towards a livable wage(one that does not force the earner to rely on public generosity and or government assistance; independence) would not cause the earners to lose their drive to climb the financial ladder -it would only reduce poverty as well as increasing the likelihood of climbing the financial ladder.


Not increasing the minimum wage creates a burden on the impoverished worker as well as the taxpayer. It is not a burden for businesses.

For small businesses, the case is understandable because they are start-ups or tiny retailers who will eventually treat their workers better after growth, but for corporations, the case is inakzeptabel. They pay workers at the bottom of the poverty line and cry out about the fact that raising the minimum wage will be financially destructive while announcing record high profits. That is why hearing that an increase in the minimum wage is a burden on businesses, is ridiculous.






Pro C2 & R> C1

Mass Unemployment is Practically False

Most businesses favor an increase in the minimum wage because they can afford it and are aware that it is a great long term macroeconomic investment[one business alone cannot do it, it involves mass cooperation]. According to the Department of Labor, around 3 out of 5 businesses root for boosting the minimum wage up to $10.10. If the minimum wage increased, many businesses not in favor of it will deal with it by cutting expenses unrelated to workers’ wages and or laying off workers. Though it would mean unemployment and a small decrease in spending, it would be a minor, short term effect that will be repaid in the long run. Since that would not be anywhere close to the majority of businesses, most businesses would take a hit in profits while abiding by the law. However, after a long time, benefits will arise, and that includes a massive increase in spending(wage boost=more spending -> natural wage boost=even more spending), which promotes business growth, and in return, increases employment and even more spending, and the cycle repeats. 600 economists who agreed with raising the minimum wage, 7 of which won Nobel awards in economics, signed the petition to do so.


http://www.dol.gov...

Please note: Ever since the minimum wage was introduced, it rose at a consistent rate in proportion to rising costs of living and inflation until the 1960s, where it started to lag behind in economy, lacking frequent and necessary boosts -this lack of upkeep continues today. If has been consistent, it would total over $20 an hour.



More info:

http://www.epi.org...



Varrack

Con

Thanks, Pro.

R1) Life Necessities

On the surface, this argument may seem like a good one. However, there are many problems that are tied to it and really no evidence that raising the minimum wage will actually help this cause, only theoretical assumptions.

The reason some workers receive the minimum wage as pay is because their contribution to the labor market is the smallest possible to be recognized as something worth paying for. The money paid to a McDonald's worker represents precisely the value that they are adding to the economy. Suddenly doubling their wages for doing the exact same amount of work before and after creates an imbalance in society. These workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system. Consider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.

Pro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening. As the challenger of the status quo, Pro must demonstrate that raising the minimum wage will benefit society, not just in theory, or else there is no reason to change the status quo. Economists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1]. This makes sense, because few minimum wage earners are actually poor. In fact, the average minimum wage earner has a family income of $50,000 per year, with less than one-fifth at or below the poverty line[1].

To add, the cost of living varies from state to state, so if the federal minimum wage were to be increased, it would create an unfair situation for many states as they would be forced to comply to the increase regardless of whether their cost of living is cheap or expensive.

R2) Incentive

This is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more. By raising the wage, a worker would think "since I'm earning enough now then I don't see a point in working to earn more". This is a burden for not only businesses but the economy as well because less good jobs are being taken, and less money is being pumped into the system. This issue is also important because the majority of minimum wage earners are between the ages 16 and 24[2], so they are at a critical point of choosing their jobs and decided whether they want to receive more education or not.

R3) Employment

My opponent's proposal to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $16.97 would be detrimental for many companies because it would force them to pay their employees over double the amount they were originally being paid. Clearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment. We must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not. That makes the opinions of many businesses irrelevant to this issue.

Pro concedes that unemployment would increase due to a higher wage. Since it would mainly affect the 4.7% of minimum wage workers, the unemployment rates would not seem big in comparison to the rest of workers. However, the unemployment rates would have a much more drastic effect if we focused on those workers, the workers that matter, alone. Job rates would significantly decrease for them. As I showed in Round 1, there is higher unemployment in states with higher minimum wages.

Additional Notes

Pro makes a few other assertions that are not backed up by evidence, such as "increasing the wage provides benefits" and "not increasing it creates a burden on the taxpayer". How exactly? These assumptions can be logically dismissed since they were randomly inserted into the argument without actual evidence.

My final point: If the minimum wage were to be increased from $7.25 to $16.97, that would negatively affect workers who were earning above the original wage, like those earning $12 an hour. Does this mean that they will now be paid the exact same as original $7.25 workers who are doing less work than the higher $12 earners? This will create an unfair situation for workers earning between the original federal wage and Pro's proposed increase.

Sources

[1] http://www.heritage.org...
[2] http://www.heritage.org...
[3] http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
ConceptEagle

Pro

First of all, I will change my argument to raise it to $10.10 instead of $16.97, suddenly changing it to $16.97 is too drastic -baby steps are necessary.

1.Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage would exceed value of work


These workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system.


Did you make that up?

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research(CEPR), the productivity of those earning minimum wage(economic value of their work) has actually exceeded the amount being paid. You can view the statistics here: http://www.cepr.net...


“ . . . consider this: If the minimum wage had simply tracked US productivity gains since 1986, it would be $21.72 an hour --three times what it is now.” - billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer.


2. Rebuttal Against:> Get Education, do not beg government


Consider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.”



Unless there is adequate public generosity and or government assistance, he would not be able to afford to attend the education to get a degree without an increase of the minimum wage. Remember, as I had said earlier(derived from the Huffington Post), $7.25 an hour is barely enough to afford life’s necessities, even when being dependent on government assistance while living in the cheapest county in the US.


3. Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage Increase Does Not Reduce Poverty



Pro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening.”


It will(as a theory that 600 professional economists, seven of them Nobel prize winners, agreed on when signing a petition), however there is no historical evidence that make it a clear fact that the minimum wage is to blame for economic downs or solely responsible for instances of poverty reduction -I admit.


“Economists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1]

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


That economist’s* claim is only supported by one reason: job loss.


See why it is one not three:


First, the only workers who benefit from a higher minimum wage are those who actually earn that higher wage. Raising the minimum wage reduces many workers' job opportunities and working hours.

Second, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households.

Third, the majority of poor Americans do not work at all, for any wage, so raising the minimum wage does not help them.


The Minimum Wage Does Not Reduce poverty


Those second and third claims do not support the core claim that “it would not reduce poverty”, but of possibly “having little impact”. By the way, little positive impact is better than none.

See the full argument that will handle multiple rebuttals below(busting the job loss myth):





Rebuttal Against:> Job Loss///(Will serve as support for the argument above and the argument below)


Clearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment.

It is not that simple. Your methodology is true, but is not true for the long term. In the long run, jobs would come back and the economy would flourish.

The key reason why job loss will not be lingering for the long run nor continue to plague the economy, is that raising the minimum wage would then stimulate spending, hence, stimulating the economy, thus creating even more jobs, which pushes wages even higher. According to the Department of Labor, it would expand the economy by $220 billion. This is not a theory; it is an economic law, that when more money is added to peoples’ pockets, they spend more, which in return, propels; markets, business expansion, and wages.


According to the Congressional Budget Office, half a million-1 million jobs will be lost if the minimum wage were raised. However, the earnings would lift many people above the federal poverty line.

This research is highly reliable, but shallow due to its projections not covering a large span of time in which the act of raising the minimum wage would replenish those jobs due to an influx of spending and create even more.


“A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.” -Department of Labor


Nick Hanauer strongly advocates the same concept:

“Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production, and hiring.

Studies by the Economic Policy Institute show that a $15 minimum wage would directly affect 51 million workers and indirectly benefit an additional 30 million. That’s 81 million people, or about 64% of the workforce, and their families who would be more able to buy cars, clothing and food from our nation’s businesses.

This virtuous cycle effect is described in the research of economists David Card and Alan Krueger(the current chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) showing that, contrary to conventional economic orthodoxy, increases in the minimum wage increase employment. In 60% of the states that raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment, job growth was faster than the national average.

Some business people oppose an increase in the minimum wage as needless government interference in the workings of the market. In fact, a big increase would substantially reduce government intervention and dependency on public assistance programs.”


Also, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, states who raised the minimum wage faced significant job growth based on 2014 analysis.

http://www.cepr.net...


This source is far more reliable than your source of contradictory information since the American Action Forum(a source used by that Daily Caller article) is moderately right winged(and free market advocates) and 3 out of 8 of their economics experts have a PhD in economics while CEPR is nonpartisan and all 5 of its economics experts have a PhD in economics.


Additional Notes:

Focusing more of the wealth towards people who would spend it faster makes the economy grow faster, instead of focusing it on those who already possess large amounts of it. The presidents of the US who have used this concept in their economic strategies have performed very well. The Democrat presidents adopted this strategy the most while most of the Republicans placed businesses first, which explains why the top three presidents who scored best at maintaining good financial health of the overall economy were Democrats and the worst three were all Republicans.

s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="CH2_FHP" width="624px;" height="277px;" />

This graph was made by the economist writers and analysts Bob Deitrick(financial planner, entrepreneur, and professor) and Lew Goldfarb(CPA, business lawyer, law professor, and entrepreneur). Their book, Bulls, Bears, and the Ballot Box, informs us that that economic strategy has been solely responsible for economic prosperity.


Hence, the myth that Republicans are best at promoting business growth, is false -a common lie spread by today’s media, which are owned by the plutocrat Rupert Murdoch.


Additional Notes:


This is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more.”


I never said that -you put words in my mouth- I said that minimum wage workers would still be inclined to move up the financial ladder even if you raised their wages to $16.97 -dissatisfaction with their lifestyle would still exist because they cannot afford middle class entertainment.

See:

A budget of $15k a year($7.25 an hr) is extremely tight, while requiring government assistance and public generosity(services such as soup kitchens and church feasts, where meals are free) in order to afford cheap costs of living. Raising it to $21k per year($10.10 an hour), would still not allow the minimum wage earner to afford any cheap forms of luxury -the incentive to get a better job in order to afford more things would still exist and would not decay,” -me.


“We must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not.”


It is irrational to judge impact based on the appearance of a number that seems meager. Raising the minimum wage will positively impact the economy(which includes businesses) in the long run even if less than 5% of workers earn minimum wage.



Varrack

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro!

Observations

My opponent has attempted to change his initial arguments. This is unethical because it forces me to change some of my arguments and means that Pro concedes all the points I made against a $16.97 wage, including much of the life necessities contention. By switching goalposts, he is backtracking his opening statement and argument. Not only was I not notified about this change, Pro decided to make it in the very last round. Judges, please note that this is unfair and poor conduct on Pro's part.

As challenger of the status quo, my opponent must show is significantly beneficial to raise the minimum wage. If our arguments are equal, then my side wins as it is already the status quo.

Poverty

The life necessities and poverty arguments go hand in hand, since the poverty rate decreasing is proof that impoverished workers are actually getting what they need and making their circumstances better off. This is the most important argument as it is the base of Pro's initial contentions.

The minimum wage increase would have little to no effect on the poverty rate because few minimum wage workers come from poor households, meaning there are hardly any of these workers that the change would actually affect. It cannot bring hardly anyone out of poverty, because hardly anyone is impoverished! An increase would only affect the small amount of MW workers, of which a tiny amount have financial struggles. We must also acknowledge that poor people in America are quite richer than many other countries.

Those second and third claims from the poverty rate study I brought up do support the claim that raising the minimum wage wouldn't reduce poverty, because (1) not enough poor workers exist that the raise could have an actual effect on, and (2) raising the wage does not help for the majority of poor workers who don't even work for any wage, so it makes no difference to them. Also, "having little impact" does not mean that the effect is positive, it means that the poverty rate may or may have not have changed due to the raise, which we cannot assume helped it since the poverty rate is affected by several different factors.

Since few MW workers are poor and most of them are pretty young, then we can logically assume that affording education should not be a big problem for them, especially since it doesn't take much education to get a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Many MW workers only get a high school diploma, so keep the limit at bay will be a good push for them to go to college, even if it's community college, to learn, earn, and climb the income ladder.

We must note that Pro has not provided any evidence of his own to show that a raise would reduce the poverty rate, so his case just isn't strong enough

Employment

Pro contradicts himself twice, first by making arguments for a $10.10 wage yet citing economists who advocate a much higher wage: $15 an hour by Nick Hanauer; and second by stating that the CBO indicates a 500k to 1 million loss of jobs due to the raise of the minimum wage while the CEBR states the opposite with less jobs in states with lower minimum wages. He accounts for the job loss prediction of the CBO by saying that it doesn't account for a longer job growth span. Obviously job growth will even out again over time since the US dollar is constantly losing value to due inflation, making it so that a minimum wage increase would have a more significant effect at first but would become more accustomed to the economy later. However, the job loss would be greater overall. When the US minimum wage was raised in three increments from 2007 to 2009 ($5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour) , the effect was not job growth but instead a devastating economic recession that killed millions of jobs. True, we have gained jobs since then, but no one can admit that we would have been better off with a recession. The short-term effects are what matter most as they tend to be more of a shocker than long-term effects.

My opponent commits two logical fallacies to try to overturn my evidence. The first is the Genetic Fallacy [http://www.nizkor.org...] where Pro accuses my source of being "right winged". He is attempting to dismiss my source because the economists are of a different ideology than him, instead of actually looking at the data and numbers I provided. He also commits the Appeal to Authority Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by stating that his source is probably right because his economists have more PhDs than mine do. This is not a rebuttal because he is relying on irrelevant factors to try to discredit my sources without even attempting to show why it is wrong.

The data from the American Action Forum actually comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I can't see how it's biased anyways.

Pro's reliance on predictions and economist guesses aren't strong enough to make an endurable argument. He attempts to make the case that states who raised the minimum wage have more job growth, but cherry picks the data. According to the graph in his CEPR source, the two states who had the highest job growth did not raise the minimum wage, while the state with the lowest job growth raised it. The scattered data of the states in between don't show any strong correlation between employment and a higher MW. This evidence only shows data from growth over 10 months and from 2013 MW hikes, but ignores state wage increases from 2012 and 2014 that could also influence the data.

The data I provided in Round 1 (which Pro ignored) shows a clear increase in unemployment and job reduction in states with minimum wages above $7.25 versus states at or below the federal wage. In fact, raising the MW by just one dollar still has a significant effect on the unemployment rate.



"Raising the minimum wage to an amount that is closer towards a livable wage(one that does not force the earner to rely on public generosity and or government assistance; independence) would not cause the earners to lose their drive to climb the financial ladder" - Pro

It actually would because workers who are more satisfied with their incomes would not have as much of a desire to get themselves out of financial problems. Pro's logic for this doesn't really make sense, because dissatisfaction fuels incentive. If I'm getting a D in a class at school, I am more inclined to work harder than if I am earning a B.

Conclusion

Pro's main argument is that raising the minimum wage will help workers earn what they need. However, I have proved that few MW workers are actually poor and that raising the wage really does not have an effect on the poverty rate, so this idea just does not hold. Unemployment would increase as a result of raising the wage, along with less incentive to work. The cons simply outweigh the pros. My opponent's opposing arguments are full of speculation, fallacies, cherry picking, and guesses, and do not provide solid evidence like mine does. Thus, he has not been successful in holding his end of the BoP. Judges, vote to negate.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ConceptEagle 1 year ago
ConceptEagle
Congratulations, Varrack, well done.

I would like to give special thanks to Varrack for the debate, 16kadams and tajshar2k for voting, bluesteel for moderating the voting, and ResponsiblyIrresponsible for the helpful comments.

Thank you all, it has been a pleasure :D
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Yup, exactly. If the resolution is, like, "Guns don't cause violence," I'd probably be inclined to place the burden on CON, because PRO isn't necessarily refuting a negative--though resolutions like that have been up for debate for some time.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Oh I get it, cool. "Should" resolutions = equal BoP, "Is" resolutions = BoP on Pro (or instigator I suppose).
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Wow, I was...really tired when I wrote that, lol. Let me just clarify once more.

First, I don't place the BOP on the affirmative in a normative resolution. You're conflating resolutions.

Second, there's a fundamental difference between PRO needing to affirm a positive statement and needing to establish a side of a normative resolution. You're not responding to the logic I laid out about creating a bias for the status quo, which is, in reality, nothing more than an ad-populum fallacy.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
needs*

Lol, it's late.

Basically, what I said earlier was that *normative* resolutions call for equal burdens. If the resolution is just "the sky is green," that's a positive statement, an "is" over an "ought." Undoubtedly, PRO has the BOP. If the resolution is "the sky ought to be considered blue," we have two different statements of what should be, and thus a dual burden.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
That depends a lot on what PRO seems to approve and whether the resolution is normative .
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: syracuse100 // Moderator action: REMOVED<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not prove anything. Most of the information from pro were opinions. Con stated facts and statistics more often and provided credible sources.}

[*Reason for removal*] (1) This RFD makes no attempt to explain its conduct or S&G vote. (2) This RFD merely states *that* Con had better sources -- it does not explain *why.* (3) This RFD is insufficiently specific about why it voted on arguments. It's reasoning is so generic that it could be said of any debate, and therefore fails to offer any meaningful feedback.
=====================================================================
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
In many of your debates you will say things like "the burden of proof is upon PRO to prove..." such and such, so viewing it that way, I pretty much did the same thing as you.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I don't think that holds, because it creates a bias that the status quo ought not be challenged, or that the burden is in changing, not in defending, the status quo. Any normative resolution involves two conflicting claims as to what ought to be, and the starting point need not--and should not--establish any sort of preferential bias.

That notwithstanding, "not stated otherwise" is the crucial part of this, because obviously I have to judge what's put before me. That isn't to say that I would assume that the BOP is on PRO unless one of you were to tell me to think otherwise, but that his tacit acceptance of this alters the way in which I have to judge. You said the burden of proof was on PRO and he didn't challenge it, so I had to buy it. That benefited you immensely, obviously, though I don't tend to think it would've made a difference in the outcome of this debate.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
@RI - Is challenging the status quo and making the affirmative claim not enough to indicate the holding of the burden of proof by the instigator when not stated otherwise?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
ConceptEagleVarrackTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you guys did a good job refuting each others arguments, so I gave that a tie. Both used sources, and correct grammar. Like Con stated, you cannot change arguments in the middle of a debate. Therefore, I must award Con the point for conduct.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
ConceptEagleVarrackTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has to prove that raising the minimum wage is worthwhile. He must prove (1) That minimum wages help people (on aggregate), and (2) that any harms imposed outweigh the costs. Con argued MW's lead to decreased employment and do not benefit the poor in any way. Pro argued minimum wages make the poor better off and allow people to more easily obtain "life necessities". Throughout the debate statistics were thrown back and forth, but Con's evidence was upheld (even though he could easily have used more reliable evidence). Pro attempted to refute Con's point by attacking the sources credentials, but methodology is more important than character attacks on a source. Pro argued the CEPR report supports his claim (and a few other experts), but forgets to mention Con's evidence from Heritage was also written by PhD's... Pro refutes Con's evidence on poverty but offers no evidence of his own. Even though I doubt Con's position from that, Pro failed to offer any counter evidence. Con wins.