Instigator / Con
12
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#205

Minimum wage

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
3

After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
27
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO wins sources. Fmpov you clearly see PRO sources stating that the minimum wage barely pays now a days and is barely enough to afford a house. He uses specific, reliable, and key evidence for the topic while CON uses two sources that don't necessarily cover the full extensiveness of the topic and cover sources. I give args to PRO. PRO wins that 16-24 are not the majority minimum wage workers and these struggling adults need the money to work for. All CON says is that economy goes down because of minimum wage. PRO sources win the arguments, because I am more persuaded to vote for the struggling workers than help the economy, as PRO states to a certain extent.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

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's analysis. Con's response to workers' protection is that their alternative also protects workers, but Con does not make a very convincing argument for why their alternative is preferable to the status quo; Con's alternative is undermined by Pro's reasoning that "con's counter plan won't work because people are still going to have to do those "minimum wage" jobs."

Conduct wise, I agree that Pro's failure to address Con's alternative until Round 3 made it impossible for Con to respond to their rebuttal, which caused the debate to be less fair.