Resolved: Bernie Sanders would be a better president than Martin O' Malley

My opponent does not address framework, so extend these arguments across the flow. I value morality. Morality is action guiding, categories like "goodness" must account for their action guiding properties. We can only understand moral actions as action guiding if we adopt a principle of moral substitutability. Sinnot Armstrong 1: I have a moral reason to feed my child tonight(...). I can't feed my child tonight without going home soon, and going home soon will enable me to feed her tonight. Therefore, there is a moral reason for me to go home soon. (...)This argument assumes a special case of substitutability. If there is a moral reason for A to do X, and if A cannot do X without doing Y, and if doing Y will enable A to do X, then there is a moral reason for A to do Y. I will call this (...)'moral substitutability. Deontological theories locate moral good in the property of an act, but properties do not substitute to necessary enablers. Only consequentialism can account for substitution, because an action and its necessary enablers are united by consequences. Sinnot Armstrong 2: It is the very nature of deontological reasons that makes deontological theories unable to explain moral substitutability. This comes out clearly if we start from the other side and ask which properties create the moral reasons that are derived by moral substitutability. What gives me a moral reason to start the mower is the consequences of starting the mower. (...)This reason cannot derive from the same property as my moral reason to mow the lawn unless what gives me a moral reason to mow the lawn is its consequences Thus, any non-consequentialist moral theory will have to posit two distinct kinds of moral reasons: one for starting the mower and another for mowing the grass. Once these kinds of reasons are separated, we need to understand the connection between them. But this connection cannot be explained by the substantive principles of the theory. Thus, the standard is consequentialism. And lives come first because life is a prerequisite to having anything else, but that doesn't mean you torture ten people to save one life - it just means saving one life is more important than giving one person autonomy. Contention 1: $15 wage Sanders wishes to raise the minimum wage to $15, but this will have disastrous consequences. O'Malley may have said he wants it at $15, but this is just to contrast with Clinton. In office, he set it to $10.10, so prefer that number as O'Malley's preference. Public Prefers 10.10 (http://blog.seattlepi.com...): Sixty-three percent of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour but there is far less support for a $15-an-hour wage(...). The proposed $10.10 wage, backed by President Obama, garners support from low-paid workers, well-paid workers, and "even Republicans and Tea Party supporters are close to break even on the issue," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who was co-conductor of the survey. But the falloff in support above $10.10 is striking. (...) only 28 percent of those surveyed would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. (...) the $10.10 wage is backed by 77 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Independents, 47 percent of Republicans and even 45 percent of Tea Party supporters. So a $10.10 wage will pass through Congress, whlie $15 won't. And, employers prefer 10.10 as well.(http://www.cleveland.com...): Fifty-five percent of the nearly 2,200 human resource managers interviewed, for their employers, say the minimum wage should be at least $10, but only seven percent say it should be $15 or more. Raising the wage too high will cause excess unemployment and kill the economy. 10.10 finds a compromise, reducing poverty and making businesses happy, while 15 makes the unemployment disadvantages outweigh. (http://www.forbes.com...): For they are recommending that the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour: a truly absurd notion. (...) this is simply an absurd demand. There would be very large unemployment effects from such a raise meaning that many people would simply lose their jobs. (...) It is absolutely true that modest increases in the minimum wage have small effects on employment. (...) But economics (...) the fact that a small change has small effects does not mean that a large change will still have small effects. So what we"d like to know is what is the level of a minimum wage where it starts to have large effects? (...) 45 to 50% of the average wage: go above that level and we"re harming low paid workers (...) the median hourly wage for the US is $16.71. The proposal for a $15 an hour minimum wage will make the minimum wage 90%(...) which point we know very well that we"ll be harming low income workers, not aiding them. When you weigh this against other arguments, remember killing the economy comes above most other arguments since it will kill the economy, which eventually harms other things too. A 10.10 wage is 60%, but after taking the increased wages into account, it will be in the range. Contention 2: Age. http://www.cnn.com... The president ages twice as fast while in office, according to a theory advanced by Dr. Michael Roizen, a chief wellness officer at the Cleveland Clinic. "The typical person who lives one year ages one year," he said. "The typical president ages two years for every year they are in office." Using public information, Roizen looked through medical records of previous presidents back to Theodore Roosevelt. Assessing factors such as diet, blood pressure, physical activity and lifestyle habits, he calculated that the leader of the free world ages more quickly. Sanders is already 73, and given that the average male death age is 81, if he ages at double speed, there is a pretty high risk, not only for a death in office, but for serious health problems that could hinder his ability to govern. If you want a senile president, vote aff. For a proven leader - former mayor and governor - vote neg. Speaking of proven leader, contention 3 is experience in government. Sanders is a former senator. He's just a politician. The American people need a true leader, one who has been in this position before, not another politician. With the current gridlock in congress, Sanders is also waaaaay too far left. No change will happen, while O'Malley is more centrist, like Bill Clinton, who had a great tenure besides his scandal. So for all these reason - a better economy, a more productive Congress, someone who will live throughout the term - vote neg.