Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Lannan vs. FamousDebater - Minimum Wage RFD

Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:09:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
PRO has three contentions. His first is on poverty, and he supports this with three premises.
First, he cites a quote which states that an increase in the minimum wage by some small percentage causes a decrease in the minimum wage by another small percentage. He cites a second quote which states the same. One is from about $7-$8, the other cites a hike up to $10. I'd like to make a note here. PRO does cite sources, but he doesn't explicitly mention their content in round. What credibility does his sources have? When I listen to in person debates, I expect the debaters to explicitly reference the content of their sources to me. I shouldn't be expected to have to click through the debaters' sources. That's lazy rhetoric on the debater's part. Anyway, the argument here is inductive in nature and doesn't strike me as a particularly strong one. A wage hike from $8 to $10 is not the same as a wage hike up to $15. PRO doesn't link this contention back to the resolution, and did not show me how a wage hike up to $15 should be implemented. His sources are nebulous, and the contention isn't shown to be relevant (I'm suppose to draw an inductive conclusion to relevancy on my own). However, I am not CON. Let's see how CON addresses this argument.
PRO's second premise cites a quote about raising the minimum wage, references a graph, and then segues from a quote about significant boosts in income to a reduction in poverty. Seems like quite a leap in logic there. Reducing poverty and boosting income aren't the same thing, so I checked the source,which does draw the conclusion of a minimum wage hike reducing poverty. PRO's derivation from this source, however, isn't compelling. If he is expecting me to read the source and let the source make the argument for him, then I am afraid he will be disappointed. Sorry PRO. You can use sources to support what you say, but you're the one who has to present it in a convincing manner. Don't just randomly quote from your sources. Even just summarizing it would do. If your source isn't a hard statistic, you should be conveying the important points from within your source (i.e according to blah blah Research Institution, blah blah study showed blah blah increase is good/bad for blah blah percentage of people). It also helps to lend your source some credibility. I will only weigh what is brought up in round. I will not weigh your source's arguments unless you explicitly state them.
And again, a raise in the minimum wage is not equal to a $15 minimum wage. I can support the former without supporting the latter. Yes minimum wage raise, but why $15? With the way PRO is constructing his argument (inductively), why not a $20 minimum wage? Why not $1000? The contention certainly allows for it. PRO has shown me that a raise in the minimum wage is good, but not that a raise up to $15 is good. Again, I will defer to weighing this contention against CON's response and/or his arguments, not my own, so we'll see how this turns out. If PRO manages to push these past CON's refutations/contentions, I will allow that PRO wins, but if there is a direct contradiction between contentions, I won't be weighing PRO's contentions very strongly. Sorry PRO. :P
PRO's second contention basically argues that a minimum wage increase will increase productivity: "this theory is demonstrated by a lot of as my source shows Economic Research". Seriously, that's the best citation I've ever heard. XD. Well anyway, he cites a multitude of sources to back the productivity argument. Negative correlation with poverty and financial stress? Sure. More experienced workers? Eh. Ok. I can buy it. PRO probably could have also cited the obvious increased incentive to work. Well anyway, I can accept that raising the minimum wage increases productivity levels, but I'm not so sure about what this has to do with the $15 minimum wage specifically.
Contention three is a massive appeal to authority. Popular opinion doesn't make that opinion fact no matter how many people support it. Now if you had cited an economist who studies this stuff and maybe knows what he/she is talking about, I might have lent some credence to your appeal, but I am given no reason to believe that the Church and all these supporters know what they are talking about when it comes to economics. How do I now these people aren't just complaining to get more money? Even if I bought the specific appeals referenced here, none of them actually have anything to do with the $15 minimum wage. Sure. I can agree that workers should at least be paid the minimum living wage, but is $15 minimum wage the minimum living wage? I'm really not being shown the correlation from these contentions to the resolution. PRO's ending summary affirming a $15 minimum wage seems to appear out of nowhere as none of the contentions in and of themselves seem to support a $15 minimum wage. That's my impression of PRO's constructive round.

Now let's look at CON's constructive round
CON also has three contentions (3 is a lucky number? :D). His first states that a wage increase does not create more jobs, Since economic debates are almost always statistical in nature, we now have to examine the evidence. 500k jobs cut to help compete at low prices? Why were the jobs cut? It is implied to be cut due to minimum wage, but not really stated, so this stat appears irrelevant. CON does note the irrelevancy of the 500k stat's irrelevancy, so I'm not crazy, I think. Next, teenagers lose jobs to older people. Well ok, but that means the net number of jobs isn't really decreasing now is it? I liked the Wisconsin example even though causation =/= correlation. The latter truism also applies to his graph. How do I know that the jobs loss isn't just part of the recession? How do I know that minimum wage isn't being raised in response to unemployment and not the other way around? I don't. I do think that the evidence here is stronger than PRO's as I am given hard economic data that is semi-relevant and credibly backed. If PRO doesn't address this contention correctly, I'll have to let it weigh in CON's favor.
PRO's response to CON's contention one basically says that job loss may be caused by factors other than minimum wage, PRO then pins all of it on globalization. I wouldn't go that far, but it does raise the question as to the impact that a minimum wage raise actually has on the economy and society. I can buy that MW doesn't affect unemployment. PRO spends too much time selling his source here imo, but ultimately yes. PRO's source here is stronger

Now a clarification. CON has a different burden than PRO. PRO has to show specifically that a $15 minimum wage should be in place whereas CON can negate either by showing another minimum wage rate to be preferable or by countering the idea of raising the minimum wage itself. So CON's contention one works out in terms of relevancy. I liked the point on higher drop-out rates from school. More unskilled workers means more low wage workers. I don't know about the correlation to minimum wage though. If low-wage workers in general are satisfied with the current rate at which they are paid, I don't see how increasing their numbers would make them want higher wages since they are already satisfied. I don't see a logical correlation to minimum wage here. Well anyway, back to the contention. CON refers to economists and makes relevant statements on the raise in minimum wage to a decrease in employment. Although I don't know if the unemployment being referred to is temporary, constrained to a certain time frame, structural, or any other reasons that unemployment can occur, CON does a good job with the rhetoric here to sell this contention.
Senpai has noticed you.
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:10:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
CON's contention 2 addresses an issue I've had with PRO's line of reasoning. Why not make everyone a millionaire? PRO's response is that there is a distinction between different minimum wages and that $20 is evidently bad. Bad how? And isn't PRO negating his own arguments? $8 and $10 minimum wages are different from $15. Why isn't the $15 minimum wage bad for the same reasons that the $20 minimum wage is bad? I'm confused.
PRO: "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." Sure, I can buy that your source is more reliable, but really. Quantity of text does not determine quality of content. Again, PRO spends too much time trying to sell his source. Sell me the points, not the sources.
Ultimately, I think CON wins out with his statement on the increase in minimum wage increasing the cost of labor and causing employers to adjust the number of laborers or raise prices to account for increased costs. It makes intuitive sense, and PRO does not address it, so I do buy that inflation happens could happen in the way described. PRO doesn't actually respond to the evidence for inflation that CON provides. PRO merely gives me two quoted assertions. I value PRO's logic over CON's appeals to authority.
Contention 3 opens with a chart, and reading it, I'm not sure it supports CON's point as he thinks it does. First, there are several very long periods in which the minimum wage is NOT increased. On the other hand, the value of the dollar continues to drop with rising inflation. For example, 1967-1973 shows no raise in minimum wage. However, the value of the dollar continues to decline sharply. The same decline occurs at many points despite flat unchanged minimum wages. Also notice the sharp rise in minimum wage from 1989 to 1991 and 1996 to 1997. Now look at the rate of decrease of the value of the dollar during the same period. There is no noticeable change in the rate of inflation. Clearly, inflation is influenced by other factors. It looks to me as if the minimum wage is raised in response to inflation and not as a cause of inflation.
The rest of the contention depends on the empirical truism of CON's correlation of minimum wage to inflation. If PRO doesn't refute correctly, CON will have scored quite a heavy point in his favor.
It turns out PRO does refute the graph correctly. However, he didn't correctly refute the other inflation argument (contention 2). Ok, so CON did shotgun his evidence at me, and unfortunately for PRO, the one that passed - the one about inflation causing increased costs - is one of the heavier ones. While a 'modest increase' in the minimum wage wouldn't affect employment much, a hike up to $15 does not strike me as a modest increase.

Next, CON hammers it home when at the outset of round 3. A raise in the minimum wage is not equal to a raise of the minimum wage to $15. In this and in similar strains of refutations, PRO's case crumbles. At this point, I will not read further. CON wins.

If there is any point you'd like me to clarify, feel free to ask.
Senpai has noticed you.
fire_wings
Posts: 5,551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:57:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
) Nice, but shorter than expected.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:32:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 11:09:48 AM, Beginner wrote:
PRO has three contentions. His first is on poverty, and he supports this with three premises.
First, he cites a quote which states that an increase in the minimum wage by some small percentage causes a decrease in the poverty by another small percentage.
Fix. Goddamnit. x_____x
Senpai has noticed you.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
famousdebater
Posts: 3,937
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 6:00:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.

I've written 25,000 character long RFD"s.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 6:24:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 6:00:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.

I've written 25,000 character long RFD"s.

Why? It is unnecessary. The idea of 5 round debates is also unnecessary. Just look at how many votes are made on all the debates. I think the people in charge of voting are delusional and completely out of touch with the real world and what motivates people to do things. Like vote on debates on DDO. I am guessing they think their methods and results are a complete success. I bet voter participation is down 80% since I joined this site.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
famousdebater
Posts: 3,937
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 6:41:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 6:24:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:00:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.

I've written 25,000 character long RFD"s.

Why? It is unnecessary. The idea of 5 round debates is also unnecessary. Just look at how many votes are made on all the debates. I think the people in charge of voting are delusional and completely out of touch with the real world and what motivates people to do things. Like vote on debates on DDO. I am guessing they think their methods and results are a complete success. I bet voter participation is down 80% since I joined this site.

It isn't unnecessary. It allow both Pro and Con to learn where they did wrong and therefore it allows them to adapt their arguments and improve for the next time that they debate.

5 round debates aren't unnecessary because if they were then people wouldn't use them. If debaters want an in depth discussion on an issue then 5 round debates are ideal. It may not attract voters but this site is more about learning than winning. Learning something from a debate is 10x better than winning. My favorite debates that I've done have been against FT, Bsh and Zaradi. I lost all of them (and tied one) but those have been the debates that I've learnt most from. The reason for voting going down is a huge misunderstanding on users behalf. You aren't required to vote anything above 1k characters however when you see others vote higher than that, users almost feel like this is the bar in terms of standards and are put of about this. Whiteflame and the mods have continuously expressed and informed people that the bar is nothing more than what the space provided in the RFD section provides. Extensive feedback is optional.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 9:10:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 6:41:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:24:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:00:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.

I've written 25,000 character long RFD"s.

Why? It is unnecessary. The idea of 5 round debates is also unnecessary. Just look at how many votes are made on all the debates. I think the people in charge of voting are delusional and completely out of touch with the real world and what motivates people to do things. Like vote on debates on DDO. I am guessing they think their methods and results are a complete success. I bet voter participation is down 80% since I joined this site.

It isn't unnecessary. It allow both Pro and Con to learn where they did wrong and therefore it allows them to adapt their arguments and improve for the next time that they debate.

5 round debates aren't unnecessary because if they were then people wouldn't use them. If debaters want an in depth discussion on an issue then 5 round debates are ideal. It may not attract voters but this site is more about learning than winning. Learning something from a debate is 10x better than winning. My favorite debates that I've done have been against FT, Bsh and Zaradi. I lost all of them (and tied one) but those have been the debates that I've learnt most from. The reason for voting going down is a huge misunderstanding on users behalf. You aren't required to vote anything above 1k characters however when you see others vote higher than that, users almost feel like this is the bar in terms of standards and are put of about this. Whiteflame and the mods have continuously expressed and informed people that the bar is nothing more than what the space provided in the RFD section provides. Extensive feedback is optional.

" It may not attract voters " Then what is the point of debating? Attracting voters is the #1 priority for a successful debate site. If not then it is just a social media site with occasional debates that the vast majority of users won't read or vote on. Again the voting guidelines are completely out of touch with reality and the real world. The guidelines are based on what a few individuals think is acceptable when in reality the rest of the world thinks they are insane.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 9:19:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/26/2015 9:10:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:41:43 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:24:06 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/26/2015 6:00:35 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 12/23/2015 11:40:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Why are people putting their RFD's in the forums? And since when did RFD"s have to be 8000 word dissertations. Ya or na come to the real world.

I've written 25,000 character long RFD"s.

Why? It is unnecessary. The idea of 5 round debates is also unnecessary. Just look at how many votes are made on all the debates. I think the people in charge of voting are delusional and completely out of touch with the real world and what motivates people to do things. Like vote on debates on DDO. I am guessing they think their methods and results are a complete success. I bet voter participation is down 80% since I joined this site.

It isn't unnecessary. It allow both Pro and Con to learn where they did wrong and therefore it allows them to adapt their arguments and improve for the next time that they debate.

5 round debates aren't unnecessary because if they were then people wouldn't use them. If debaters want an in depth discussion on an issue then 5 round debates are ideal. It may not attract voters but this site is more about learning than winning. Learning something from a debate is 10x better than winning. My favorite debates that I've done have been against FT, Bsh and Zaradi. I lost all of them (and tied one) but those have been the debates that I've learnt most from. The reason for voting going down is a huge misunderstanding on users behalf. You aren't required to vote anything above 1k characters however when you see others vote higher than that, users almost feel like this is the bar in terms of standards and are put of about this. Whiteflame and the mods have continuously expressed and informed people that the bar is nothing more than what the space provided in the RFD section provides. Extensive feedback is optional.

" It may not attract voters " Then what is the point of debating? Attracting voters is the #1 priority for a successful debate site. If not then it is just a social media site with occasional debates that the vast majority of users won't read or vote on. Again the voting guidelines are completely out of touch with reality and the real world. The guidelines are based on what a few individuals think is acceptable when in reality the rest of the world thinks they are insane.

We have to switch to renewable fuel sources now! Never mind the fact they are nonviable, unsustainable, non cost efficient and will leave millions without energy. It's the principal of the few that matters, not the wants or needs of the masses.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%