Minimum wage

Ram's RFD, Part 2:

The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.

Ram's RFD, Part 1:

Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable. This makes pros primary contentions more reliable. Specifically: pros sources directly support his primary contentions (eg: he cites a source to show how many jobs needed to earn a living wage to show how poor the current minimum wage is), in multiple cases - bolstering his position, whereas only one of cons two sources directly supports his primary contention
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. Sources are sufficiently explained. The voter, improving on the vote's previous iteration, sufficiently describes the impact of the sources on the debate.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Polytheist-Witch // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Con did not present a good enough argument or plan to keep companies from dropping the wages to almost nothing anyone could live on.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the main arguments and to weigh those arguments to arrive at a decision. Essentially, more detail is required here. To cast a sufficient vote, the voter should survey (state) the main arguments, analyze those arguments (who won them and why?), and then put that all together (weigh) to produce a verdict.
************************************************************************

Ram's RFD:

Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable.
Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficiently explained. The main arguments are surveyed and weighed to reach a decision. The sources justification was nearly sufficient, but there lacks a clear analysis of how "the sources impacted the debate." If the effect on the debate was merely to make one side more trustworthy, that should be stated. The voter can make the vote sufficient by copying his existing vote and adding a brief explanation of how the sources impacted the debate.
************************************************************************

Whiteflame's RFD:

Not much of a debate, so not much to say. Con's argument basically functions as a statement that we have a system in place that would function as a minimum wage through labor for the government. Pro's response comes too late (final round responses are generally bad form), but the argument just doesn't do much for me. Basically, he's just stating that this would provide a form of the minimum wage, though it's unclear how it actually benefits beyond providing more people for construction work to rebuild hurricane-damaged areas. Setting aside the fact that not everyone can work in construction, that all such disasters would only need short-term work (and therefore result in short-term employment), that they would require people to move far away from homes and families, and that the government cannot endlessly employ such a large population at such wages (all of which were points Con could have made, but likely didn't have the space to provide), Con's just getting no offense on this point - he's just reproducing status quo through a different means, perhaps slightly improving on minimum wage for an uncertain length of time.
Pro's case allows for the same kinds of wage increases through the minimum wage. He also makes a convincing case for both boosting the economy (locally and nationally) as well as the increasing number of jobs. Both probably could have been challenged in a more meaningful way if space and more rounds had allowed, but Con's response doesn't challenge Pro's reasoning, and Pro's final round reasoning was a solid rebuttal to that argument that provided more detail on how the minimum wage functions as Pro claims. Even if I am affording Con some offense through his argument, it comes almost entirely as assertion, whereas Pro's comes with clear warrants and evidence. That gives me enough reason to side with Pro.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and counterarguments of the debate, and then weighed those arguments to produce a verdict. The vote is clearly sufficient.
************************************************************************

Sylweb's RFD (cont'd):

Pro raised several reasons why the minimum wage is beneficial: economic benefits and the protection of workers. Con failed to respond directly to Pro's economic arguments and instead cited a study that indicates that raising the minimum wage from the status quo would harm the economy. This did not help Con's case very much because Con did not provide a specific reason why Con's source should be preferred to Pro's reasoning and Pro's source, and did not directly clash with Pro'

Sylweb's RFD:

Owing to the short rounds, neither side developed points very thoroughly. Overall, Pro did a better job of pushing forward their own side than Con did.
Con did not spend enough time proving the crux of their case: that the minimum wage should be abolished, and spent too many characters discussing less important issues. Con began the debate by presenting an alternative to the minimum wage: the government simply hiring anyone dissatisfied with their job. While discussing alternatives is certainly important, Con's first constructive argument failed to contribute to Con's burden of proof, making for a fairly weak start to the debate. This is because proving that an alternative exists without proving that we should pick the alternative over the minimum wage does not fulfill Con's burden. Con's only direct objection to the minimum wage was that the minimum wage contributes to unemployment, which was in round 3 but should really have been in round 2. This argument was severely weakened by Pro's counterargument, which cited a source stating that the minimum wage does not create unemployment. Both sides cited sources with opposite points of view on whether the minimum wage leads to unemployment, but only Pro provided additional reasoning ("Raising the minimum wage enables the lower-class to spend more money and increase jobs. "), which Con failed to counter. Thus, on balance, Pro had a stronger case because they provided at least some logical reason to prefer their conclusion over Con's.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sylweb // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and counterarguments of the debate, and then weighed those arguments to produce a verdict. Regarding conduct, the voter provides a specific reference to a conduct violation and explains how this made the debate less fair. The vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************

The government putting people to work has been tried before. It got us out of the great depression and provided jobs during this time.

Ok cool. Thanks for the vote

I deleted and re-uploaded the vote again to add additional details

Ok cool. I didn’t know people could delete their own votes. I appreciate the thorough review

I deleted my vote because I accidentally submitted it before the RFD was complete. The final vote is now up.

«sylweb» has published a new vote for the debate «Minimum wage»

Please re vote if you can. For some reason it’s not showing up

Thanks. I enjoy short debates like this sometimes

Yep, pretty short. I'll likely get to this tonight.

Would like some votes on this please. Short debate and shoudl be an easy vote

Alec, I do not thing virtuso violated conduct, he made his opening arguments as you did, rebuttals would be for next round.

More characters and more rounds. Round 1 should have been arguments. It’s impossible to make a strong opening case and rebut your points in R2 with less than 1k characters.

Though ultimately I have a stronger BOP than you do

I should include more characters next time.

The debate info and stuff can be entered separately so the first round can be used for arguments instead of acceptance only