The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
18 Points

Raising the minimum wage hurts the economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,181 times Debate No: 22861
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)




Raising - Increasing
Minimum wage - A minimum wage mandated by the government, currently ~7$

1st round acceptance..... No trolling please.


Felt like dipping my toe in again, so accepted.

Wouldn't mind a definition of economy in your opener, either.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Economy - A US national economy, resources, generally jobs and money.

C1: Will raise teenage unemployment

My government sources will be in a wayback machine link. The argument is simple, employers hire people and pay them what they are worth. If you are worth 1$, but they have to pay you 7$, they just wont pay you. This was proven in earlier wage hikes, especially amongst poorly skilled or under educated individuals, yes it actually hurts the people it is trying to help! [1]

"When the minimum wage gets boosted, employers frequently cut down on hiring teens who typically fill lower-priority positions." [2]

It's a simple argument to grasp, lets say someone is worth to the employer about 5$ an hour, got it? But if you have to pay them 7$ an hour, you are losing money off of this worker, then the employer is not likely to hire ou or keep you very long, this economic argument has been around for 100s of years.

"According to U.S. Department of Labor figures, 20,000 workers lost their jobs following the 1996 minimum wage hike, while unemployment among black TEENAGE boys jumped from 37 to 41 percent." [3]

Now lets look into current wages, has this long held theory held the ages? Has it begun to flip flop in modern times? No, it has not, I wish it did, I really want 100$ wages, but sadly that would kill the economy. If you look at the stats, the minimum wage hikes have done no good. [4]We must also ask, how much does the minimum wage actually effect them? Is it a major problem? Now, I am not denying the minimum wage's reason was be good, but if it actually fulfilled the reason is my question, and even if it did was it enough to prevent these possible and major downfalls? If the minimum wage had no downside, we would raise it to enormous rates, but even the most progressive thinker would be against such raises. Many academic studies show it actually decreased employment in all sectors, especially teenagers and minorities. The 2008 minimum wage raises destroyed teenage unemployment by about 160,000 jobs. [5

I like graphs so:

C2: Minorities

Same logic as above, There is well documented evidence it hurts minorities. [6]C3: Raises pricesObvious, if you have to pay more on employees that have to make the stuff you have to raise ptices to compensate for the losses. [7]

Vote a la pro (I will make longer arguments later) (one on prices and one on overall employment, sorry if that is inconvinient)

[5] Adie, Douglas K. 2008 T "Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?" . BALL STATE UNIVERSITY


Thank you for your argument.

Before I talk about my opponent’s arguments and offer some of my own, I’d like to address burden of proof. I take the stance of rejecting the claim, "raising the minimum wage hurtsthe economy." I must show that it’s more reasonable to reject this than accept it. There are two basic reasons to reject a claim. The first is a lack of evidence for it, the second is evidence against it. If Pro does not provide valid evidence that the minimum wage harms the economy, then you should vote Con. If he does, and I provide more convincing evidence of lack of harm, you should vote Con.

C1 & C2

I will address both of Pro’s contentions at once. Conceding nothing regarding their factual content, they are irrelevant to this debate. Substituting provided definitions, the proposition Pro must defend is “Raising the minimum wage hurts a US national economy, resources, generally jobs and money.” Pro must show that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy in general, as a whole. He has not done so. His entire approach relies on the economic well-being of sub-groups within the population which may or may not be representative of the entire economy.

He has yet to make that link, and until he does, these contentions carry no weight and can be dismissed, leaving him with no argument. I’ll go further and say that the teen argument is misleading as only a small portion of minimum wage earners are teens, with the majority being adults trying to support themselves and their families.[1]

I'll label my arguments N1, N2, N3, for the sake of clarity.

N1. The minimum wage is historically low.

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage peaked at $10.47 an hour in 1967, as compared to its $7.25 currently. This decline has happened while worker productivity has increased. If we were to link how much workers were paid to their actual productivity (their worth, if you will), the minimum wage would be $21.72 per hour. Similarly, if we linked minimum wage to GDP growth, the minimum wage would be $20[2]. Since this shows a noticeable gap between the low income workers and the growth of the economy, it’s interesting to note where the shares of growth are going [3]:

(I join my opponent in a huzzah for graphs!)

Unless Pro is going to present evidence that the declining real minimum wage and increasing income inequality has boosted the economy, we’ve got plenty of room to raise it now.

N2. The minimum wage doesn’t hurt the economy through job loss

We have to be careful of correlation/causation fallacies. There are a lot of things going on with our economy at once, and if the nominal minimum wage has risen while employment has dropped, Pro will need to exclude other factors before he can claim a causal link.

However, when we look at studies that do exclude other factors, we find that there simply is no such link. One of the most rigorous and controlled studies looking at 500 counties over 20 years and found that there is no link between higher minimum wage and less jobs [4].

More specifically, studies that focus on teens tend to not control for factors such as differences among states and economic upheaval. When those are taken into account, “minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce employment among teens.[5]”

N3. The minimum wage boosts the economy

Having found no link between job loss and minimum wage, let’s look at the positive aspects. First, states whose minimum wages are higher than the federal minimum wage tend to have faster job growth then states that don’t [6]. Illinois in particular raised its minimum wage slightly by $0.35 in 2005 and saw marginal job growth, however, “in 2005 when it increased its minimum wage by a full dollar to $6.50 per hour. Illinois' job growth of 0.96 percent closed the gap with its Midwestern neighbors and was substantially better than the other two comparably large Midwestern states: Ohio had only 0.21 percent employment growth and Michigan still had a small decline of -0.02 percent.[7]”

Other studies confirm this in a variety of environments. A study using World Bank data showed “At low minimum wages an increase in the minimum wage stimulates economic growth. At higher minimum wages we find no effect on growth.[8]” An analysis of Indonesia’s success with minimum wages suggests that in, “a time of growth in Indonesia, when sticky wages may have limited wage growth” a minimum wage helped the workforce move to a solid high-wage, high-consumption equilibrium.[9] Given that in the US, GDP and productivity continues to grow, but real wages are sticky downwards, the relevance is clear.

In conclusion, Pro has not provided evidence that raising the minimum wage would hurt the economy. The evidence I have presented shows that it would have a neutral or positive effect.










Debate Round No. 2



I agree, but my opponents no evidence is false, if you are interested in long studies (like 300 of them) see here.

Defending C1 and 2

My opponents main claim here is it is irrelevant, as these subgroups pose no overall proofs to pro (me). But, this argument is false, as teenagers are a large force in the labor market. [1] Now, this is common sense. The majority of McDonalds workers are teenagers, if you go to any local supermarket you see mainly young workers. My opponents minority argument fails, as teenagers are a vital unit of the overall economy, and are indeed a large section in the workforce.

My opponent then claims I yet to make a link, which is false as I mainly spent time working on creating economic theory as well as brute statistics showing a link. Minimum wage increases lead to 46% decreases in teenage employment, historically, and have no benefit and actually detriment minorities. [2] Then claims most workers are not teenagers, but this is not the case, as 27%, a large chunk, are teenagers, and young adults are 19%. [3] These large groups, although not the majority, are a large portion of the minimum wage group. Also, even if it is only a small portion, we can use them to gauge overall public attributes. A poll, for example, only polls 1000 people, yet are used to show overall opinion. Using similar data means we can use teenagers to some effect on the minimum wage.

Also, as stated, a large industry, fast food, relies on teenagers. A bump in the minimum wage hurts this large industry, the fast food industry is harmed by increased wages and generally lay off teenagers and minorities. It has negative effects. [4]

N1: Minimum wages are historically low

My opponent essentially says increasing income is good, and the minimum wage raises income, and having inequality is bad. Well, he forgets multiple things. First, economic theory shows if you are hired for 8$ an hour, having a minimum wage of 4$ an hour will not effect your wage, basically saying people are not payed based on minimum wages rather how hard they work etc. So, having a lower minimum wage means we would have NO change in incomes for the employed people, and incomes would increase because the people making 0$ would now get 3$. Now, even if economic theory highly proven is false, we must also is his wage worth the downsides of the unemployed people? Lets assume it raises wages, but as stated it is almost economic fact raises in the minimum wage harm employment. [2] So, before we can disprove my argument, even if I fail, my opponent must prove the added wages have more of a benefit then the unemployed workers, in other words, is the costed job to him worth the extra cent to him?

Also lower wages mean lower unemployment, for teens and overall. I will provide a graph for teens only, as when I post two graphs I get the annoying internal error thing:

N2: Does not hurt job loss

My opponent uses the correlation causation, yet this is ignorant to say in this situation. Years of economic thought, years of correlation, years of proof, with the evidence provided most economists concur higher wages hurt the overall unemployment outlook.

My opponent then cites one of the VERY FEW studies showing an increase has no effect, one of the only studies I have seen that shows this, other then the famed Kruger study. But, this will likely face similar criticisms, as these studies that come up rarely can be mimicked in other studies, they may use everything the same and then not be able to replicate the other results. This happens to most minimum wage studies that show the results my opponent claims. [5]

"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [5]

My opponent then gathers evidence saying it does not account for other factors. This is a falsity, as the studies I have read make many dummy variables and other such attempts to try to curve that possibility economic problems occur. Now, with correlations such as these, [5] it is unlikely another factor happens every time a wage increases, as any increase shows jobs being destroyed, so it is statistically almost impossible very time the wage raises a factor decides to jump in every time to hurt employment. Also, the wage raises almost always hurt low skilled workers. [6]

N3: boosts the economy

Now this does ignore other factors, as lets take an example, California has high minimum wage and a big economy. But this comparison on states ignores many things:

Places of interest
Nature (oceans attract tourism etc)
Other laws

A place like New Mexico is deficient in most of those things, and California pockets are bulging in them. Minor comparisons like the one you place are faulty as the TRULY ignore other variables. Midwestern areas and Ohio have different economies and different statistics that have variables, I doubt the statistics my opponent is using are using dummy variables etc. State and regional comparisons, to be blunt, are inaccurate statistically.

My opponent then claims firstly there would be no effect with a higher minimum wage, which is contrary to most economic belief. Now, my opponents argument makes no logical sense. Higher minimum wage causes higher cost to the company if they choose to keep hiring the low skilled workers, and actually mandate many harmful things. Now, if you have a company worth one million, the minimum wage robs you 400k, your company wont grow, and will have to lay off workers to make ends meet most likely. This basic economic theory proves raising the minimum wage is bad. [7] Then my opponent cites evidence in Indonesia showing more minimum wages make an equilibrium. but a US study:

"A new study from labor economist Dr. Joseph J. Sabia (United States Military Academy at West Point) suggests that increases in the minimum wage have a negligible effect of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the overall economy--and can actually have a negative effect on the GDP generated by certain low-skilled industries......... Facts are stubborn things, and the reduction in employment that follows increases to the minimum wage is one of the most stubborn. No matter how activists wish to spin it, increasing the cost of labor decreases the demand for that labor. It’s ECON 101. " [8]


Basically see my last quote about econ 101, so vote con :D

[2] Welch, Finis, and Cunningham, James. 1978. "Effects of Minimum Wages on the Level and Age Composition of Youth Employment." Review of Economics and Statistics
[4] Van Giezen, Robert W. 1994. "Occupational Wages in the Fast-Food Industry." Monthly Labor Review
[6] (above)


In the order Pro has them:

BoP .

I'll pass on a source-bomb by proxy. If you've got a study that that you think proves your case, bring it out. Dropping a link to a list of studies gets you nowhere. You might as well link to a google search of "minimum wage bad." If you want to enter source evidence into the debate, you need to explain what it is and how it supports your case. Otherwise we might as well give the whole argument/debate thing a miss and declare wins based on how many sources people can dig up.

And while we're on the topic of sources (yes, in the BoP section, I'm aware), any instance of Pro making a claim whose sole support is an unexcerpted link requiring the reader to find the support in the source themselves should be viewed dimly, and when that source is not web-accessible, it should be disregarded entirely. Otherwise debate becomes simply a longwinded version of Pro saying "The resolution is affirmed [X]," Con saying "The resolution is negated [Y]" and the voters deciding on what they already believe as no actual arguments are being offered and the source material can't even be challenged.


My argument against Pro's contentions was that they depended on finding economic harm to a subgroup of the population, and then using that to make an illegitimate claim of a general economic harm. In order to succeed with his chosen case, Pro needs to succeed in arguing that 1) his chosen subgroups are experiencing harm and 2) that harm is representative of the general economy.

Pro's R3 argumentation is lukewarm on 1 and completely fails to accomplish 2. He attempts to make a link through economic theory and brute statistics. However his theory is the idea that when the value of an employee is less than minimum wage they won't be hired. This doesn't support the claim that the overall economy is being harmed. It merely provides a mechanism by which harm could happen.

It could equally well be the case that the higher income provided to the workers who were previously under-valued due to weak labor market conditions create a stronger demand thus creating more jobs and helping the economy.

Or, It could be the case that employees were largely underpaid due to their weaker bargaining position, and thus Pro's hypothetical worker was really worth $10 dollars but only being paid $5 because of a lack of opportunities. The minimum wage would raise the worker's pay yet still allow the company to gain value.

All the hypotheses are possible. However, on their own they can't sustain a claim of what's actually happening in the economy. For that we need to look at the studies, the data, the statistics. As we do that, we must be sure that we do so correctly. This is where we see Pro's claim of a statistical link fall apart. It starts with Pro's argument that my claim of most workers not being teenagers "is not the case, as 27%, a large chunk, are teenagers" and it goes downhill from there.

Next up is Pro's attempt to gain relevance for his subgroups through comparison to polling practices. Pro argues that since pollsters can survey a small sample of a population and make inferences of the entire population, that it's fair to consider his subgroup representative of the economy. I embrace the comparison to polling practices, as quality research using polls makes sure that a sample is truly representative selection of the population, rather than a subjectively biased representation of one subgroup [1]. The factors that can cause polling research to be flawed are in play here, making Pro's contentions flawed as well.

Pro finishes his support of the affirmative case with the introduction of the fast food industry. Since the fast food industry is reliant on teenagers, Pro reasons, it would be hurt by the minimum wage and lay-off workers. This has the same problems as before. You can argue that the minimum wage hurts the fast food industry, but that's not an argument about the economy in general.

In additional, this is an example of relying on an inaccessible source to do the heavy lifting for the argument. On what basis are we supposed to believe it? We can't tell, and should therefore reject the argument.

In the most favorable light, Pro's argument has shown that the minimum wage hurts certain populations or business sectors within the economy. It hasn't shown that the economy itself is affected.

To the negative case!

N1. The minimum wage is historically low.

I found Pro's response here unrelated to the arguments I actually made. Rather than address my points, Pro reiterates his theory of harm from the above C1&C2 section.The thrust of my N1 argument here is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with the growth of productivity or GDP.

If we focus on what workers are worth, as Pro does continually, then their productivity is surely a measure of the value they bring to their employers. If we scaled the minimum wage to increased productivity, we could raise the minimum wage to around $20 before reaching the same ratio we had in 1967.

The story of the GDP is similar, obviously with the economy growing the workers are producing more value, but that value isn't being shared back with them. Coupled with evidence that the upper class sections see rises in fortune while the working class's income falls, the implication is that increasing the share of income to the worker affects the distribution of wealth within the economy, not the health of the economy itself.

The challenge to Pro: Show why this isn't the case. A further repetition of the idea that employers won't pay more than an employee is worth, or a statement the resolution is "economic fact" is inadequate. If Pro can't show that this isn't the effect of raising minimum wage, the resolution is negated.

N2. Higher minimum wage doesn't cause job loss.

I used a study to support this claim that's far superior to any of the sources that Pro has offered and I've explained why. It's a large population, it's over a significant timeframe, it has quality control factors. Pro's counters that he's seen more studies that point the other way and that the study's results would be unrepeatable. The first argument is only valuable in that it gives insight to the basis of Pro's opinions, and the second is sourced from a 1996 political position summary paper that itself reports conclusions from other sources. The study I posted was published in 2011. I somehow doubt that a republican sum-up brief from 15 years earlier casts much doubt on its validity.

If the readers would like to entertain a government analysis of the research, I offer the more recent 1999 Economic Report of the President which concludes, "Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect onemployment."[2]

The republican sum-up is also the source for Pro's claims of job loss in this section. My study is much better than his partisan talking-point sheet. Until he manages to tear my study down or counter it with a better one, my argument stands. The minimum wage doesn't cause job loss.

This negates the resolution, even if readers believe any of pro's argumentation from C1&C2 survives.

N3. The minimum wage helps the economy

During the period of my referenced study from 1998 to 2006, the aggregate employment in the 11 states plus D.C. with minimum wages raised above the federal requirement increased 30% more than the 39 states that didn't. I claim causality. Even if you reject this, you can't affirm that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy when the places that do are better off than the places that didn't. The economy is objectively better in those places.

Pro counters with unsupported speculation about confounding factors between two states and quotes from an opinion piece. This is not enough to refute the argument.

[1] (chapter 6)
[2] (page 112)
Debate Round No. 3


I DO NOT CONCEDE THE DEBATE, but it kept deleting my arguments and I only have an hour left. So, I FF this ONE round, conduct to my opponent. Voters, vote based on arguments not solely this FF. So provide both arguments. So to conclude, I will steal this quote from Jat who posted this in the comments:

"In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result." - Murray Rothbard.

VOTE PRO *hopes it does not delete*


If one types an argument at the last minute and it eats it, I might have some sympathy.

But if one thens type it again in the same fashion, rather than typing it in a word processor and copy pasting it, I’m not sure how much slack is really deserved. Given that, I’ve got no problem asking voters to treat this as a de facto concession.


The definition of harm was a little murky in this this debate. Pro tended to equate it with job loss, and I didn’t challenge him, so it seems that’s the reasonable interpretation for voters.

Pro’s case.

Pro never disputes that he must link the harm to his subgroups to harm to the overall economy. Reading this debate myself, there’s a semantic argument to be made whether harm to a subgroup within the economy constitutes harm to the economy by itself, but that wasn’t an argument Pro made, so please don’t take that into consideration.

Instead, Pro relied on a general mechanism by which the minimum wage could cause harm, and a comparison to polling practices to claim his subgroups represented the overall economy. As I discussed in R3, the mechanism by itself doesn’t mean anything. Pro has to show that the mechanism actually causes harm to the overall economy instead of just having the theoretical potential to do so since there are other possible scenarios where it wouldn't. The polling comparison supports Con, as proper polling practices try to get a representational sample rather than choosing a subgroup with characteristics that support the conclusion they want to draw.

At this point, you can vote Con as Pro hasn’t met the burden of proof.

N1: The minimum wage is historically low.

Pro simply did not engage this argument.

Over the last forty years or so, the worth of workers has gone up, as measured by their increasing actual productivity and the rising GDP that they generate for the economy. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage has gone down, so raising the minimum wage shouldn't make it greater than the value of the worker in enough instances to actually harm the economy.

Whether or not you agree that productivity and rising GDP are valid measurements of worker value, or that it’s applicable to minimum wage workers, or any other claim of this argument, Pro has conceded all points by his failure to address them. So for the purposes of this debate, this argument proves that the minimum wage doesn’t hurt the economy. Vote Con.

N2. The minimum wage doesn’t hurt the economy through job loss.

This was a source battle, and one that Con won decisively. Pro’s source claiming job loss was a secondary source, 1996, political position piece. Con’s source claiming no job loss was a 2011 peer-reviewed journal article detailing a 10 year study with a large population.

I topped it off with a source of similar provenance to Pro’s from 3 years later also claiming no job loss.

This argument speaks directly to the resolution. As winning this arguments means no job loss, thus no harm to the economy, the resolution is negated. Vote Con.

N3. The minimum wage helps the economy.

I use another good study here to show that states which raised the minimum wage over the federal limit have better job growth than states which didn’t. Ignoring the quotation of an opinion piece that quotes an economist who quotes a study, Pro makes an argument that you can’t compare California to New Mexico because California has bulging pockets which give it a stronger economy. First, that’s only two states, and second it doesn’t matter where the states start. If we see all states that raised minimum wage increase their job growth relative to all states that didn’t, that’s reason to accept it as evidence that the minimum wage helps the economy.

The objection fails, Con wins the argument and thus the debate. Vote con.

Sum Up:

Pro essentially concedes by not posting a final argument.

Pro doesn’t connect his subgroups to the topic at hand, the economy, thus not meeting the burden of proof.

Con puts forth unchallenged an argument that increasing the minimum wage won’t trigger the mechanism of harm Pro prposes.

Con’s evidence for no job loss is a solid recent study while Pro’s evidence for job loss is an outdated political piece.

Con shows a relevant study showing positive effects of raising minimum wage which Pro can’t counter.

And as a kicker, the choice of quote that Pro did post in R4 was copy/pasted from a different person in the comment section. Bad form.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
I love that quote. Pro made good arguments, even though they were wrong, the argumentation was above par. If 16k didn't have a non-round for time/technology problems, he would have probably won.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
"In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result." - Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Yeah, I would debate him on minimum wages. I have a few better sources now. Economics 101 is not enough in a debate I guess :P
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
You might challenge 16kadams to a debate then, if he's still up for this topic. The rationale for the minimum wage was beyond the scope of this debate and the effects it has on general well-being was tangential.
Posted by Rohitmz 4 years ago
To help you debate better on this topic I would like to pitch in with the rationale behind the minimum wages and why there is a need for parity of minimum wages across sectors and demographics in a region. Minimum wages works on the principle that every individual has the right to earn his/her livelihood in an honest and honorable way. Criterion of minimum wages is set so as to enable every individual to live and enjoy the life as per the economic condition of that country or region. In US the government has arrived on the figure of $7.00 which it thinks (or calculates) will be able to provide a decent standard of living to the citizens. In India on the other hand every government department and agency is required to provide the minimum wages of Rs. 115 per day to the contractual workforce. However, there are certain private sector companies who pay their employees far less than the government norm. In the Indian Context the minimum wage guidelines are not binding on the private enterprises and businesses.
I would like to propose a minimum wages framework where the private companies would hire the minimum wage workforce as per the rate fixed by the government. And the government shall compensate the rest if the employee is not getting the minimum wages due to the financial constraints of the employer.
Posted by zach12 4 years ago
I wish I referred to the minimum wage as "~$7" However I know all too well it is $7.25 16k
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
Probably not on this topic and probably not for awhile. I've got other stuff I should be doing, which is why I haven't been on recently.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Wanna do this again later?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago

Overall, this was a pretty enjoyable thing to read but, Con won this debate.

Conduct--Con. (Pro FF)

Arguments-- Pro's argument was basically a rise in min. wage == more teenage/minority unemployment. Con rebuts Pro's case by pointing out these are only two subsets of the economy and cannot represent the whole economy. I feel Pro was rather weak when defending his case, Con successfully took out Pro's case. Con's case showed min. wage increases actually help the economy overall. Pro's rebuttal centered around utilizing his own theories which Con showed were well wrong. By doing this Con's case is effectively uncontested.

Sources-- Pro's sources were mainly biased, partisan papers. Con utilized peer reviewed journals.

Overall victory, CON.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear winner here. I still am on pros side but he did'nt argue very well, or at least not as well.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. Pro had sloppy arguments that didn't seem well put together. He failed to nail down the economy as a whole and kept getting sucked back into defending his argument about sub groups. Con made some good points and some not so good points but overall due to Pro's FF and lack of a clear cut attack at the BOP Con wins the debate.
Vote Placed by blazeratman 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Excellent debate! Really enjoyed reading through it. Have to give the slight edge to Con. I initially felt Con was posting better points about mid-way through the third round. It was a spectacular read, and I wish both of you could get some type of credit for the debate, but alas there can only be one winner.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: comment.