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

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,466 times Debate No: 83193
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (3)




This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.

The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.

First round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.
Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals.
Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.
Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.
In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, "No round as agree upon."
If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.
No profanity.
No trolling.
Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.
No Kritiks.
No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (

Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (

Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (

Minimum Wage Standard-
The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee’s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (


I accept the debate and thank lannan13 for instigating the debate and Forever for setting up the tournament.

C1: Poverty

Premise 1: The ‘increased’ minimum wage reduces poverty

“About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers.” [6]

This is appalling. The minimum wage at the moment is extremely important in order for us to decrease poverty. Increasing the minimum wage can only continue to have the same effect. The following quotation proves that even a small minimum wage increase reduces poverty significantly.

“Specifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent.” [5]

If an increase this low can have such a huge effect then what will a larger increase do? Evidently, it will create a decrease in the amount of poverty even more than the small increase did.

“Using this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700.” [5]

This furthermore proves that an even larger increase would prove to be successful.

Premise 2: The ‘increased’ minimum wage helps the poor

“higher minimum wage is a substantial response to the challenges of inequality. Opponents of a higher minimum wage focus on the idea that it largely won’t benefit the worst off.” [5]

The quotation is supported by the following graph:

“A higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income” [5]

This is extremely significant because by reducing poverty we can ensure that the US can fulfill human rights to its greatest extent possible. Human rights makes direct references to having minimum wages [7]. It also makes references to reducing poverty to the furthest extent possible [8]. By not increasing minimum wages you are stopping people from receiving their human rights. This leads me on nicely to my final premise of this contention in regards to human rights.

Premise 3: The current minimum wage violates human rights

As introduced previously, the current minimum wage does not properly enforce laws upon poverty. The minimum wage states that we must stop poverty as much as possible without going to unreasonable measures [8]. By increasing the minimum wage this much we will see a huge economic benefit as well as a huge reduction in help for the poor and those living in poverty. The economic benefit proves that increasing the minimum wage to this extent is not unreasonable and the reduction in poverty shows that we must do this in order to bring the US to a place that meets the criteria set out by ‘Human Rights’.


We must raise the minimum wage in order for us to succeed in reducing poverty as much as possible in order for us to meet human rights criteria. Therefore the minimum wage ought to be risen in regards to this contention.

C2: Productivity

Higher wages result in greater worker productivity and this theory is demonstrated by a lot of as my source shows Economic Research [1]. As well as the reasoning being an increase in determination which evidently coming from higher pay raises, workers who have greater income security also see a negative correlation in poverty and financial stress, this ultimately increases work productivity as a result [2]. On to of this when they are paid more, workers are less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to waste less money and time attempting to attract more workers / employees, and they also receive obvious benefits such as having workers that are more experienced, long-term employees that can help develop and boost their company's overall [3].In terms of economy, it is shown by multiple studies that businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues from a minimum wage increase due to productivity [4].

Contention 3: Religion and general agreement

Christianity: Christianity is the world’s largest religion [9] at the moment including atheism and non-theistic religions. The Christian case for raising the minimum wage is relatively simple. I now quote:

“While there are multiple avenues through which the poor and struggling can be supported — cash transfer programs and wage subsidies, for example, might boast the same outcomes — the delivery of income through wages, rather than benefit programs, has traditionally interested Christians because it secures relationships at the local level.

In this vision of Christian society, interdependence between employers and employees is encouraged as a healthy societal bond. In other words, society becomes stronger and more cohesive as employers rely on workers for their labor, and workers rely on their labor to provide the material necessities of family life. At a broader level, the entire community also depends upon their labor for the production of goods and services needed to support society. It's a vision in which family life, community, and worship are paramount — but it takes a living wage to realize.” [10]

This case is very important since it shows that an absolutely huge amount of people support the minimum wage (ie. most Christians). This quote comes from Christian politicians so they are arguably bias however it is undeniable that one of the most notable Catholics is not going to express his opinion in a bias manner (only in favour of Christianity and the Bible):

“A number of well-known Catholics, including Father John Ryan, were early advocates of a higher living wage, pressing the issue even during the era of the New Deal. In Father Ryan's 1912 dissertation A Living Wage, he argues that not only does everyone have a right to live from the bounty of creation, but that they have the right to attain it through work.” [10,11]

This argument is powerful since it derives from such a notable Catholic figure. This view is represented, expressed and agreed upon by many Christians, Catholics in particular as the quotation correctly demonstrates.

General Agreement: 73% of Americans said that they’d support a minimum wage increase [10,12]! 36% when given the comment to comment said the minimum wage system is generally fair to most Americans and should be increased to make this a fairer system. 60% did not provide a comment and the remaining 4% made a comment against the rising of the minimum wage [12]. Only 4% made comments against the minimum wage! It is evident that there is huge support for the minimum wage among the US general public based on this.


I have proven with strong and well sourced evidence that the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hour and now I hand it over to my opponent for their neg. case. I affirm the resolution that the minimum wage should be raised.

Over to Con!


[11]A Living Wage, Father John Ryan

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. This round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation.

Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs

Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12]

This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future.

"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. " [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4].

The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5]

Contention 2: Inflation

Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6]

You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7]

"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year." [15]

Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage.

You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9]

Estimated Effects on Employment of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016

Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade

Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11]

People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17]

Sources in the Comments Section.



Rebuttal 1: Wages and jobs

I do not disagree with my opponent’s source in regards to cut down jobs however I disagree that this directly had any relevance to minimum wage (MW). The claim made was this:

“500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices.”

This debate is in regards to the US. The topic that my opponent and there source is referencing to here is not necessarily MW - it is most likely to be globalization, which is a completely different issue. You cannot necessarily look at evidence and jump to the conclusion that it is in regards to MW in the US.

Globalization is defined as the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale [1]. The reason that this could be interpreted as being a reference to globalization is because the huge negative side of the globalization debate is that companies in the US are getting their manufacturing factories in LEDCs in order to save money. This is resulting in unemployment in the US [2].

Globalization occurred at a similar time as to the time that my opponent describes it as in the graph and their argument [3].

Since unemployment correlates with the expansion of globalization and the raising of the MW and globalization occurred at the same time, this means that it is part of my opponent’s burden to show me why this is due to the MW and not globalization.

This negates this contention in a number of ways. It negates my opponent’s argument in regards to the MW correlating with unemployment.

My opponent’s argument in relation to teen unemployment is easily negated. The MW does not necessarily affect employment [4].

“... the research of two economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, then both at Princeton. They argued that the actual evidence linking the minimum wage to job losses was weak. More important, they offered new analyses concluding that the minimum wage – at the levels observed in the United States – had no effect on employment, and might even raise it! Their seminal study compared employment in fast-food restaurants in two adjacent states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, after New Jersey raised its minimum wage...” [4]

The article is strongly backed up and is written by Alan Manning who is a professor of economics at LSE and director of the communities programme in the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE. The MW will not affect jobs and employment negatively, in fact, it is possible that it could create a positive effect, as described.

Since we have conflicting evidence we need to resort to the reliability of our sources in comparison to each other. My source was written by a professor on the LSE website. If you curious as to what LSE is then I will explain. LSE stands for London School of Economics. It is considered to be as good as Oxford, Cambridge and UCL [5].

Now let’s make a comparison to my opponent’s source. This was written by Randall Hoven, who fails to even have a degree in the subject that he is writing in [6]. It was titled, graph of the day, implying that it is something that is written daily and therefore needs to be written in a day. Mine, on the other hand was written as part of Alan Manning’s PhD.

Therefore my source is superior to my opponent’s.

Rebuttal 2: Inflation

It is evident that we shouldn’t make the MW $20 per hour or any higher. I do agree upon this point. You do realize that $15, $20 and $1 million are different amounts of money, right?

My opponent then brings in the job loss myth.

“three economists involved in producing the report, distinguished between employment effects on: teenagers (ages 16-19), where they concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teen employment, most plausibly, from between zero and 1.5 percent; young adults (ages 20-24), where they believed the employment impact is “negative and smaller than that for teenagers”; and adults, where the “direction of the uncertain in the empirical work as it is in the theory.” [7]

This report was produced by economists working for the government in a large research case study on whether or not the MW actually reduces employment. This is probably considered to be one of the most reliable studies on the MW because unlike most sources this is not a page long, it is 23 pages long in size 8 font. In other words, it’s a lot of research. The conclusion of the article goes as follows:

“Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers” [7]

We can conclude from this evidence that the MW has little or no effect on unemployment in the US.

My opponent then makes the fatal mistake of interlocking his contentions. This is where his whole argument fails:

P1: Contention 1 says: (x)

P2: Contention 2 interlocks is supported by Contention 1

P3: Contention 1 is refuted sufficiently

C1: Contention 1 no longer stands

C2: Contention 2 is no longer supported and therefore does not stand.

As you can see, my opponent’s argument does not stand based on the following syllogism.

My opponent then continues by making assumptions about my case. I am not advocating the continuous raising of the MW. If the MW was increased to $15 per hour, then I would not advocate a MW raise because I would be satisfied with the current MW. Due to this, it is not part of my burden to respond to the Zimbabwe part of this argument because it is irrelevant to the resolution being discussed.

Rebuttal 3: Inflation and global trade

There is a much more well sourced explanation to what you are suggesting. Whilst my opponent has simply found a graph with MW and dollar value together, there is a lot of evidence suggesting contrary to your case. The most likely explanation:

“The nation’s money supply is constantly being expanded.” [8]

Now let’s look at a comparison of the money supply expansion and when that started in comparison to when the value of a dollar decreased.

“in 1913 something changed, and the U.S. dollar started down a long, steady road of devaluations. Using the U.S. government’s own figures, to obtain the same amount of purchasing power of $100 in 1913, you would need over $2,000 today.” [8]

Similarly,the US dollar value began to decrease in that exact year but only a small rate [8,9]. Then once the nation’s money supply began to increase at a consistent (but considerably large rate), the US dollar began to decrease more rapidly. My opponent’s graph only goes from 1955 which just shows its unreliability since the US dollar value began to to decrease in value starting in 1913 [8]. The MW in the US was only introduced 1938 [10]. That is 35 years after the US dollar value began to deplete [8].

I agree that prices are higher but that is an issue separate to this debate. The MW clearly has no relevance to your graph and your main argument and your contention falls apart because of this.


My opponent has used weak sources to support his case whilst I have provided strong research that are well backed up to support mine. He appears to have confused the issue of globalization with MW. This would be a stronger case if it was in regards to globalization since a lot of what he is saying is true but has no relevance to the MW, as my arguments and sources describe in detail. I await his rebuttals.

Sources in comments.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for holding off on his argument to accomidate my needs. This round I will respond to all of my opponent's arguments as there are a few things that I feel need to be addressed.

R1: Poverty

This debate argument was put together in interlocking argument in a premise structure to where all I simply have to do is defeat one argument and then the entire contention falls.

P1: The 'Increased' MW reduces poverty.

My opponent's first piece of evidence is irrelivant as it speaks of the $8 dollar minimum wage. The reason that this evidence is irelivant is due to the fact that the debate revolves around a $15 minimum wage (MW from this point forward) which is $7 above the evidence my opponent has.

My opponent brings up that 4.6 million would be lifted out of the poverty line in the US if the minimum wage is raised. That's nice, but there are a few factors that he is ignoring. At a $15 MW only 19% would go to and benefit those at or bellow the poverty line where as the rest goes to 3 times that of the poverty line according to a report by the CBO. [1] To show further affects it has been shown that raising the MW would create a 0% increase in income for those in the Lower Class. [2] While the Top Tier gains 20%, this shows that it is not having any of the effects my opponent is purposing. To add to that the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that at best a $15 MW would create 3.2 million jobs, but would have a net LOSS of 6.6 million jobs. I'm not sure about you, but that's worsening the situation instead of improving it. [3][2]

Here we can see that this worsens the poverty issue in America. This point is negated.

P2: The Increased MW helps the poor.

Here my opponent's own source (source 5) states that it would have no impact [gain wise] on the middle class. It would only affect the 30th Percentile. My opponent also brings up MW Elasticity, so let me explain what that means here.

From the graph above we can see that despite there's an increase in demand for Labor we have an increase in unskilled labor. [5] The reason for the increase in demand for Labor is what I like to call the 'WalMart Effect.' What this means is that jobs look for an increase in part time jobs and cut down on full time workers so that they could get away with not paying for their benefits. This is something Walmart did in California when they raised their MW nationwide. Walmart eventually had to cave in to strikes, but that goes to show you what businesses will do. [4]

This shows that we aren't helping the poor, but harming them and everyone else significantly.

P3: Current MW Violates Human Rights

With P3, my opponent states that if poverty is against Human Rights then increasing it is also violating Human Rights which I have shown above. Thus this argument and entire Contention goes in my favor.

R2: Productivity

My opponent makes an interesting argument, but we can see that this graph above causes Pro's argument to come crashing down. Simple Macroeconomics shows that if you increase the Money Supply that not only would price level's increase, but the deman for money would decrease due to simple inflation. This simply shows that if you raise the MW nation wide you will see we would be back at the first point. My opponent's "less likely to leave" argument is flawed as all wages would rise we would still see things at the status quo.

R3: Religion

My opponent's entire argument is flawed as it refurs to a Living Wage, not a MW. These are two completely different topic areas and I have shown in R2 that increasing the MW will increase the Living Wage which would be against what Christians want working against my opponent flowing this argument to my side. When it addresses a MW increase I did back research and found that there was several extremely Blue States polled making it completely biased. That would be like if I found a poll that only included the nation's reddest states. Not to mention that his source shortfalled the resolution by nearly $5. Source 12 should be thrown out of the debate.

With that out of the way let's move on to my own arguments.

C1: MW leads to job loss.

My opponent attempts to link my argument to Globalization, but this is completely incorrect as I had brought up nothing in regards to Globalization as my argument involved internal competition and had nothing to do with competiting with foreign imports or having to move business overseas. With that you should discard my opponent's argument here and I extend across my own.

Let's just say I buy the fact that my source is debunk. I still have several other scholary sources on the matter. The simple fact is that my argument still stands even if my opponent launches a simple Ad Hom attack against it, but has yet to actually refute the actual against. I, thus, extend across my arguments.

C2: Inflation

I find it funny that my opponent sites John Schmitt's article. The reason I state this is that in my source 3 he had co-authored the study with Jared Bernstein to show the MW increase to $15 would harm more than hurt America. So here we have a conflict of sources. Next my opponent's source only refers to a $9.80 MW, nowhere close to $15. Which thus negates his own argument. So despite how thorough it is, it still fails in comparison to my own evidence provided. It's more important that when we look at the source that his 10% was exceded in the last MW raise and under this one purposed in the resolution it is doubled. This is outside of what my opponent's source speaks on. Please refer to R2 for more inflation related arguments.

My opponent confuses that there's an interlinking between Contentions. One can see that there's a clear linkage of evidence and relitivity across the board, but that does not mean if you defeat one contention that you refute the entire set. That's like saying if I refute my opponent's first Contention then his Second Contention fails.

My opponent completely ignores the inflationary argument. Though he is not advocating this he is supporting the doubling of wages and hence by simple Macroeconomics, the Quanity Theory of Money states that increases thus princes would also increase as well as the cost of Living. By my opponent's own standard's in R1 he would advocate for continuious MW raising. [6]

C3: Inflation and Global Trade

My opponent, once again, is mistaken here. He is ignoring simple Macroeconomics when you apply simple Quantity Theory of Money you can see that with the increase of the Money supply then the costs of goods and other things would go up. This harms US exports as they become more expensive to other nations who, with lower MWs, wouldn't be able to afford as much of American goods vs. that of goods produced in their own nation or that of Asian nations. My own opponent's argument ignores inflation's affect's to the US dollar and ignores the fact that in 1912 the Federal Reserve was created and given the authority over US Monetary policy which can explain my opponent's "Something happened" source.


To conclude we can see that despite the increasing of the MW may look tempting it is filled with many vices that causes harm to everyone across the board by harming our worst off citizens and harming future generations by creating more unskilled labor and high school droppouts. We will continue to see inflation skyrocket as we will see the cost of living move with it to be that unreachable goal that many attempt to aim for, but will never achieve.

Sources are in the comments section.


famousdebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.

Thank you and please vote Con!


There was a glitch that prevented me from posting the previous round and in the comments me and lannan13 have agreed for voters to vote based on R1 - R3 (excluding my forfeiture), any votes placed against my forfeiture will be reported and removed.

Thanks for a great debate that was unfortunately interrupted by many glitches on either side. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
R3: "but the deman[d] for money would decrease due to simple inflation"

Demand goes up during inflation -- you don't want to save, there's the liquidity trap, and so on and so on.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Good debate guys.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Gonna give her a vote.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
Just tell them to look at current standing arguments.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
Wait, so should I say that judges should only look at arguments and rebuttals? Or do you want to get the debate tied / reset? Up to you.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
It's only there for me when I try to post arguments.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
That's what I said.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
The glitch isn't there anymore... Juggle fixed it...
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Beginner 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for decision:
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Probably won't have enough time to vote on this. Sorry.