The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment

"First, It's not a double standard. The proposition does not require that you provide empirical data, Nor did I implore you to provide empirical data" Data ties into the point system of this website, So it's not your prerogative to decide what data is needed or what points get argued. You've done this through the whole debate, You toss out my statements without making counter points and then tell me I can't use unemployment data in an unemployment debate, Which is absurd. You called several of my points "irrelevant" as a single word sentence without explaining why. You have yet to demonstrate a direct connection to the unemployment rate. You even admitted in your opinion argument that the data was inconclusive with some sides saying it help employment. If it's in conclusive, Then you're not justified to claim it as true. The only honest answer is "I don't know" and we don't just make huge decisions on "I don't know" " It's deductive reasoning. " If it was proper deductive reasoning, Then you would have direct evidence. You're using abductive reasoning, Which is drawing the most likely conclusion based on the circumstances, This is a low form of reasoning surpassed in fallaciousness only by faith and randomly choosing with your eyes closed. "First, No one did state that the minimum wage "destroys/[lose] a business. " False and I will cite you as empirical proof of this. Observe: "No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business" This was at the beginning of the paragraph that contained the previous quote, You're double talking. "Long term profits at equilibrium in a competitive market is at zero. Any loss in profit results in a net loss. You're confusing "accounting profits, " or "normal profits"" False, The link I posted concerning your theory clearly stated that the theory was suggestive, Not prescriptive. Business owners don't use this as a universal standard, Only ones that are profit maximizing. "Then the commerce generated by the employees will be lower than the cost to employ them, Resulting in losses. Hemorrhaging money as a long term strategy results in huge losses, Usually resulting in the loss of one's business. " there it is in black and white, You said that it usually results in the loss of one's business AFTER stating that this wasn't the case prior to that. "if for example, The death rate is X%. The number of homicides with the firearms increases, But the number of car accidents reduce by the same amount, Then the "death rate" will remain the same. Does this mean that firearms weren't used to create death? " Oh dear, This is not analogous because, In your scenario, The death rate remained the same. In my data, This is not the case. The data inconclusive, I've said this several times. Inconclusive means that it can't be proven either way. This logically follows that we weigh the risks of both since a political debate, Indecisions cannot safely happen in government, Your proposition is much riskier than mine. Yours creates homelessness and destabilizes minimum wage labor as a whole. My proposition leaves everything the same. There's not way around it. "You have once again conveyed no knowledge of the actual argument. " More personal attacks. . . Tisk tisk. No knowledge at all huh? Don't you think you're being a bit hyperbolic? "Don't need to provide a "(empirical) source" You do when you make baseless assertions, Darn tootin. "Another non sequitur; nothing I stated explicitly or implicitly referenced benefits of the disenfranchised. Keep your focus on my actual argument. " You didn't state it, I did. You seem to think that your opinion is the only one that matters, Because you just keeps swatting my arguments away without even caring to check their truth value. It's a sequitur because it shows the pros and cons of each system. This is considered a valid form of evidence in political debates. Even DDO says this in their burden of proof definition. "4. 9 percent of workers held more than one job at the same time" Since that was your final round of the debate, It probably would have been a good idea for you to explain how this relates to the argument. Because now I'm confused why you're brining this up and I don't know what to do with it because there's no supporting details. "Yes it is. Once again, And for the last time, When the government outlaws the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum wage, I" No, They outlaw unethical employment and sometimes that overlaps with the employment you're mentioning. Profit maximizing is not the main goal. Ethics come first. "I offered a stipulation since the beginning of my argument" The time at which you made the stipulation doesn't change whether or not it's special pleading. You can't just say "this is my debate topic, But you can't use "these" things to prove me wrong" That's called special pleading. The rest of your comments are just rehashes of the same topics that I addressed above, So I'm wrapping this up. Good debate and long debate, Lol. "That which can be asserted without evidence, Can be rejected without evidence" -- Christopher Hitchens