Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

Extend Sayre-McCord. The purpose of morality is the eliminate suffering to the greatest extend possible because suffering is inherently undesirable. Then, extend Lipp. The working poor are stuck in a deadly catch-22 where they work constantly yet can't afford to support themselves, forcing them into poverty regardless of how hard they work. The wages they earn on a minimum wage salary literally cannot support them. Creating a living wage lifts these workers out of poverty and allows them to support themselves and their families.Extend Wilson: under the status quo working for a minimum wage mathematically prohibits the working poor from supporting themselves, let alone their family. McDonalds, in their attempt to show their workers how they can afford to live on a minimum wage salary, essentially told their workers to work a second job. Without a living wage, the working poor cannot pull themselves out of poverty, and they require this living wage in order to actually be able to afford to live. And, extend Varela. Poverty correlates with HIV infection rates, meaning the more poor there are, the higher rates of infection for diseases like HIV that the US will have. Since I'm solving for the working poor, I'm eliminating a boat-load of poor which reduces HIV infections. And extend out the death tolls from diseases like HIV, meaning that I'm saving hundreds upon thousands of lives by implimenting a living wage simply because I'm allowing the working poor to not longer be the working poor, but rather the working. All of his responses (without actually being sourced, which makes me question most of his actual pieces of evidence) and in response to the poor overall, which isn't actually responsive to my arguments. Unemployed people have hosts of other government resources and welfare to pull from in order to be able to maintain a decent standard of living. But refer back to my argument which says that the living poor don't actually get that option: they don't make enough money to support themselves, but they make too much money in order to qualify for things like welfare.And, saving lives are going to outweigh other economic impacts because there's not much point to economic impacts if we're not alive: if I'm saving my family and I three billion dollars a year but I'm dying because of it, it won't matter how much money I'm saving because I'll still, y'know, be dead. This means that you're affirming because I'm making it clear that I'm winning this impact analysis: there's contested economic benefits and harms coming from both sides (overall economic impact, job availability, worker productivity, etc.) which is a really messy part of this debate. I'm extending off clear offense as to why implimenting a living wage will save lives because I'm getting the working poor to be able to lift themselves out of poverty which reduces their chances for things like HIV, which means I'll be saving lives. None of this has been responded to by my opponent, and his responses to people in poverty overall don't actually apply to the specifics of my argument. I'm showing you why saving lives outweighs other economic impacts, so that even if you think the economics debate is clearer than I'm saying it is, you're still preferring this offense anyway. It's a clear affirmative ballot from there. But let's move on.But let's go back to the negative side of the flow. Let's go down the top. Group the entire economics debate.First, You're preferring my evidence because they're providing actual warrants within the cards themselves. Read over his pieces of evidence that he's cited so far. Virtually all of them, save maybe one or two, actually have analytical or empirical warrants within them. The rest are literally just assertions that he's citing as evidence because someone else said it, which is not only a bare assertion for the making a claim without actually providing evidence part, but just saying "This person/group says it so it must be right". So on the places we have clashing pieces of evidence here, like on job losses and economic benefits, you're prefering my evidence here because all of my cards are actually warranted within the cards themselves. The cards that he's trying to use as warrants for his arguments don't have warrants themselves. But, even if you're not buying the economic part of the debate and are leaning in his favor, I'm still outweighing by saving the lives of the working poor, which is something that my opponent hasn't actually made a response to throughout the entire debate. This is his major game-over mistake because not only will it be an economic benefit of reducing the poverty by bringing these working poor out of poverty and giving them more money, with which they can re-invest in the economy by spending it, but I'm literally saving their lives from diseases like HIV whos infection rates correlate with poverty rates: the more poverty, the more infections. Not only that but by bringing the working poor out of poverty, I'm lowering the crime rate of crimes like theft and vandalism (this is coming from Fernandez et al, which empirically proves this and my opponent never made a response to this) which improves everyone's quality of life and eliminates suffering, which in turn maximizes wellbeing. So to summarize all of that into quick little bulletpoints, just in case I haven't made this absolutely crystal-clear:1. My opponent never makes a response against how implimenting a living wage would lift the working poor out of poverty. He never contests my empirics that show that the working poor physically cannot get out of poverty on their own and require something from the government (i.e. a living wage) in order to escape from poverty. This impact is absolutely massive in the debate because not only will this benefit the economy (less poverty, more money in the hands of people who will spend it/save it), but it lowers the rates of infections from diseases such as HIV, which kill thousands upon millions of people. His poverty respones address people who are unemployed, not people who are employed but cannot make enough to avoid being poverish. 2. He drops the argument I make on his case that implimenting a living wage would decrease petty crime rates and doesn't contest the empirics I use to back this up. Not only is this a voter in terms of my framework since less crime is obviously a good thing in terms of my framework, but it also promotes people's quality of life, which fulfills his framework as well. This in and of itself is something you can pull the trigger aff on. 3. The economics debate is muddled, but you prefer my evidence mainly because they're the only evidence being cited in the round that contains actual warrants in them. You can go back over his cards and see for yourself how all but, like, two, have actual warrants within the texts of the cards. And don't let him say that "Oh the article explains the stats or empirics behind it" because he doesn't actually provide you with any of that: his citations are literally just who published it and when and nothing else. So you're preferring my evidence on the economics debate because not only are they the only pieces of evidence that are actually warranted, but they're verifiably warranted, whereas you can't really verify his pieces of evidence. This is critical because this means that literally every single one of the negative impacts coming off of his case won't actually happen, leaving you with literally no other option but to affirm.