Wage labor is a form of slavery that helps to maintain and perpetuate classism

Definitions, Circular Reasoning and Debate MissionLike my opponent, I agree that arguing over semantics is irrelevant. Indeed the entire purpose of this debate is essentially justifying the term "wage slavery" as appropriate. Despite contending that it is, my opponent never denies that his circular reasoning is a fallacious justification, and thus he rightly drops this argument. He also ignores the legitimate point I made about him relying on a false equivalence. However this too is irrelevant, because my opponent DOES in fact fulfill his burden in addressing the actual issue: Is it fair to qualify low-wage labor as slavery on the basis that it pays low wages? Semantics over definitions aside, that is what Pro (proudly by his own admission) is arguing in this debate. Pro is asserting that working for low wages qualifies as slavery, because it creates an inherent system of oppression. From here out, I will bold my affirmative arguments from the last round and keep them in the order I presented.1. Slavery is working against one's will with the threat of violence; not so for low-wage workers.Pro has argued that despite not REALLY being coerced (through threat or violence), coercion still exists through a system or hierarchy and thus threats are irrelevant to one's working contracts. By this logic, voluntary exchange can never be legitimate because of inherent inequality. That is simply untrue. For instance, while women were undoubtedly politically and economically oppressed in 1905, does that mean that no sexual act could be considered valid and consensual because of the inherent (political, social and financial) inequality that existed between the two parties? Absolutely not. It is possible that despite that, a woman truly welcomed and invited sex with a man for mutual satisfaction in many instances. Another example - if a teenager with no experience agrees to work for you to gain experience and opportunities, and offers their services for lower pay than a 24 year old would, does that automatically invalidate both mutual work agreements or offers because disparity exists? No. Just because subjective needs and values exist that affect the bargaining process, does NOT mean that things agreed to during the bargaining process are automatically and inherently illegitimate or invalid. I maintain that just because there is not complete financial equality, and despite the disparity involved in mutual gains, that voluntary choices can still be made and considered valid in an otherwise free society. Classism does not mandate slavery; Pro hasn't proven that it does. 2. An employment contract signed voluntarily indicates an exchange with presumed mutual gains.In the last round, under this bolded headline Pro says that he will "provide an example that illustrates how wage labor is analogous to slavery" and yet not only fails to do so, but doesn't actually address my point about the presence of an employment contract implying shared mutual gains. Instead, Pro makes an entire new argument regarding prison labor -- which is fine and I will address it -- but prison labor is NOT the same as a free person signing an employment contract. Pro dropped this argument entirely and it must therefore be held in favor of Con. 3. Wage laborers are NOT the employer's legal property; they are not forced to work.4. Wage laborers are NOT legally owned and cannot be bought or sold.5. Employers do NOT have absolute control over the wage laborer's life, fortune or liberty.Pro's new argument regarding prison labor and comparing it to a freed person's wage labor is more in response to these arguments than my #2 point. However, they are not analogous and should not be used for a reliable comparison. The similarity between prisoners working for low wages and free persons working for low wages is that prisoners have lost many if not most of their legal rights upon their sentencing. They ARE forced to work or spend their time at one institution against their will. They CAN be moved to different places (and held captive) against their will. Whether or not the laws justifying their capture or punishment are valid is a completely separate issue that is entirely outside the scope and framework of this debate. For all we know, the prisoners in question could be in jail for rape or murder. Pro cannot imply that these two circumstances are analogous for a reliable comparison. I have never denied that people were not unjustly or falsely imprisoned. Those people are in fact slaves. However, nowhere in this debate was it required that I prove "innocent people who are put in jail and forced to work is not equivalent to slavery" - because I would not have accepted that resolution. Instead, I have to prove that wage labor in general is not slavery, and I have. In fact the majority of the last round was spent by my opponent not responding to my arguments, but instead making a case that the Prison Industrial Complex is similar to slavery. As someone who vehemently opposes the Prison Industrial Complex, I would tend to agree. But again, to use PRISONERS who have forfeited their rights in a legal capacity as a representation of low wage workers -- when the vast majority of low wage workers are free people -- is poor conduct and irrelevant to this discussion.In addition, Pro argues that because racism and sexism exists (which I have never denied), that wage labor IN GENERAL is automatically oppressive. Pro in no way whatsoever has proven that just because unfair or unwarranted 'isms' exist such as sexism, racism, classism, etc. that contracts cannot be considered voluntary. Moreover, another reason this argument fails is because it discounts the low wage jobs held by white men. Even more discrediting to this claim is that the people who work at the federal minimum or below are overwhelmingly white. In fact 77% of them are white [1]. Considering a lot of white people including white men work for low wages, it cannot be argued that wage labor is reserved for particular demographics alone and thus qualifies as slavery. Pro never contested my examples of both Italian-Americans and women achieving advancement through capitalistic enterprise not only in spite of wage labor, but often with the help of it. People of all religions, backgrounds and skin color have worked in low wage employment roles all over the globe throughout history, so this argument is moot. Pro's arguments in this debate should be limited to classism, not other ism's. My opponent's final point is that low wage workers are "literally working themselves to death." In conclusion of his argument regarding the voluntary nature of wage labor, Pro says that because people have basic survival needs (such as food, shelter and clothing) that they do not have a choice to work, and therefore their employment choices must be considered oppressed and enslaved to the demands of their humanity. In R3 I have already argued that people do not NEED to work for survival, and pointed out that it would be Pro's burden to prove otherwise. He hasn't. He also hasn't proven that people need to work 60-70 hours per week to survive as he also claimed. In fact he's made a lot of unsubstantiated claims and bare assertions, coupled with appeals to emotion. As I have said, nobody is denying that classism and its repercussions do not exist or make it very hard for some people to "get ahead." However that does NOT mean voluntary low wage contracts qualify as slavery. Even if you have to work, you have choices about the working conditions you accept.My final (official) point and one that Pro again dropped despite my repetition is 6. Many low-wage employees work because they want to, not because they have to.Please extend my arguments that many people in low wage jobs are young and/or working as a preference.However Pro has dropped a lot more arguments than that. For example, in the last round I explained that just because not all employees receive benefits such as paid time off, their employment does not necessarily qualify as slavery. I argued that not all employers (especially small businesses) can afford those benefits or to pay higher wages, especially when first starting off. Pro dropped these arguments and the one where I pointed out that HIS advocacy perpetuates classism by making it harder for "the little guy" with less start-up capital to go into business. Instead he wants only the wealthy, corporations and those with enough start-up capital (or who can afford debt) to be able to create jobs and go into business for themselves. Please extend these arguments. Pro also dropped his argument (and my effective rebuttal) noting that just because employers create job schedules does NOT mean that employees have to accept them. In many cases, they tell their employers their hours of availability. This is contrary to actual slavery which provides little to no choice whatsoever; the same thing applies for prison laborers. In the last round I pointed out that low wage workers (such as Wal-Mart employees) do not have to work at Wal-Mart, can quit at any time, can work elsewhere, challenge their working conditions and legally unionize even if it is discouraged. This is contrary to slavery where workers have little to no control over their working conditions or whom employs them. Even if I concede that humans have to work to achieve their basic survival needs (which Pro hasn't proven), we still have voluntary choices to make and control over our labor.Pro completely dropped my points about the voluntary nature of one's work vs. the pay one receives for one's work. If a musician works for years to write a single song but nobody buys it on iTunes, does his meager pay reflect years of slave labor? Of course not, that is why Pro did not address this argument or similar analogies. Thank you again to my opponent for an interesting discussion - vote CON![1] http://www.pewresearch.org...