However, it's illegal to make someone work for no wages. You can't say I will give you a day off during the week if you work both saturday and sunday for free.
He's not arguing semantics, he's arguing your ridiculous definition of slavery, which is somewhat amorphous now it seems. You call it slavery in one breath, and then you basically call it a job in another.
Define slavery for us before you continue, please, because PERFORMING LABOR in exchange for MONEY is called a job in just about every part of the world.
It'd be like a homeowner's insurance company saying we will pay your claim, but you have to work off the payment by volunteering in the office.
They can't change the contractual agreement at a whim.
The employee, who is the one receiving the benefits, does not enter into any contract, does not pay any premiums, and otherwise has absolutely nothing invested in the process. It is a system set up between the State and employers, and despite it being termed "insurance", it is quite literally simply a welfare system. "Unemployment Compensation" is the official term, insurance is not mentioned.
If your claim is based on the premise that there cannot be any conditions placed upon receipt of benefits, then you're already on the losing side of the argument, since there are plenty of conditions already in the law.
The way the system is now, the unemployed person receives benefits for X weeks, and is only required to show that they are "looking" for work. When the number of unemployed keeps going up, benefits paid increases, while taxes collected decreases. When the government keeps extending the weeks paid out, that compounds the problem.
The solution is to either increase revenue, or decrease benefits. Increasing revenue would mean increasing taxes charged to employers, which would likely decrease the potential for new employment, compounding the problem more. Only logical solution would be to decrease benefits paid, either through a decrease in payment per individual, or number of individuals paid.
This proposal both allows for a period of time in which the unemployed person can receive benefits for free, as well as a period of time in which the unemployed person can essentially receive a part-time job from the state. This will encourage some people to look harder for a job, or to accept an adequate job that they otherwise may not, as well as improve the community through whatever service projects the unemployed participate in.
Despite your attempts to play word games and redefine concepts, that's exactly what is going on, and the argument cannot be broken.