Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to

This round I will respond to all of my opponent's arguments as there are a few things that I feel need to be addressed. R1: PovertyThis debate argument was put together in interlocking argument in a premise structure to where all I simply have to do is defeat one argument and then the entire contention falls. P1: The 'Increased' MW reduces poverty. My opponent's first piece of evidence is irrelivant as it speaks of the $8 dollar minimum wage. The reason that this evidence is irelivant is due to the fact that the debate revolves around a $15 minimum wage (MW from this point forward) which is $7 above the evidence my opponent has. My opponent brings up that 4.6 million would be lifted out of the poverty line in the US if the minimum wage is raised. That's nice, but there are a few factors that he is ignoring. At a $15 MW only 19% would go to and benefit those at or bellow the poverty line where as the rest goes to 3 times that of the poverty line according to a report by the CBO. [1] To show further affects it has been shown that raising the MW would create a 0% increase in income for those in the Lower Class. [2] While the Top Tier gains 20%, this shows that it is not having any of the effects my opponent is purposing. To add to that the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that at best a $15 MW would create 3.2 million jobs, but would have a net LOSS of 6.6 million jobs. I'm not sure about you, but that's worsening the situation instead of improving it. [3][2] Here we can see that this worsens the poverty issue in America. This point is negated. P2: The Increased MW helps the poor. Here my opponent's own source (source 5) states that it would have no impact [gain wise] on the middle class. It would only affect the 30th Percentile. My opponent also brings up MW Elasticity, so let me explain what that means here. From the graph above we can see that despite there's an increase in demand for Labor we have an increase in unskilled labor. [5] The reason for the increase in demand for Labor is what I like to call the 'WalMart Effect. ' What this means is that jobs look for an increase in part time jobs and cut down on full time workers so that they could get away with not paying for their benefits. This is something Walmart did in California when they raised their MW nationwide. Walmart eventually had to cave in to strikes, but that goes to show you what businesses will do. [4] This shows that we aren't helping the poor, but harming them and everyone else significantly. P3: Current MW Violates Human RightsWith P3, my opponent states that if poverty is against Human Rights then increasing it is also violating Human Rights which I have shown above. Thus this argument and entire Contention goes in my favor. R2: Productivity My opponent makes an interesting argument, but we can see that this graph above causes Pro's argument to come crashing down. Simple Macroeconomics shows that if you increase the Money Supply that not only would price level's increase, but the deman for money would decrease due to simple inflation. This simply shows that if you raise the MW nation wide you will see we would be back at the first point. My opponent's "less likely to leave" argument is flawed as all wages would rise we would still see things at the status quo. R3: Religion My opponent's entire argument is flawed as it refurs to a Living Wage, not a MW. These are two completely different topic areas and I have shown in R2 that increasing the MW will increase the Living Wage which would be against what Christians want working against my opponent flowing this argument to my side. When it addresses a MW increase I did back research and found that there was several extremely Blue States polled making it completely biased. That would be like if I found a poll that only included the nation's reddest states. Not to mention that his source shortfalled the resolution by nearly $5. Source 12 should be thrown out of the debate. With that out of the way let's move on to my own arguments. C1: MW leads to job loss. My opponent attempts to link my argument to Globalization, but this is completely incorrect as I had brought up nothing in regards to Globalization as my argument involved internal competition and had nothing to do with competiting with foreign imports or having to move business overseas. With that you should discard my opponent's argument here and I extend across my own. Let's just say I buy the fact that my source is debunk. I still have several other scholary sources on the matter. The simple fact is that my argument still stands even if my opponent launches a simple Ad Hom attack against it, but has yet to actually refute the actual against. I, thus, extend across my arguments. C2: InflationI find it funny that my opponent sites John Schmitt's article. The reason I state this is that in my source 3 he had co-authored the study with Jared Bernstein to show the MW increase to $15 would harm more than hurt America. So here we have a conflict of sources. Next my opponent's source only refers to a $9.80 MW, nowhere close to $15. Which thus negates his own argument. So despite how thorough it is, it still fails in comparison to my own evidence provided. It's more important that when we look at the source that his 10% was exceded in the last MW raise and under this one purposed in the resolution it is doubled. This is outside of what my opponent's source speaks on. Please refer to R2 for more inflation related arguments. My opponent confuses that there's an interlinking between Contentions. One can see that there's a clear linkage of evidence and relitivity across the board, but that does not mean if you defeat one contention that you refute the entire set. That's like saying if I refute my opponent's first Contention then his Second Contention fails. My opponent completely ignores the inflationary argument. Though he is not advocating this he is supporting the doubling of wages and hence by simple Macroeconomics, the Quanity Theory of Money states that increases thus princes would also increase as well as the cost of Living. By my opponent's own standard's in R1 he would advocate for continuious MW raising. [6]C3: Inflation and Global TradeMy opponent, once again, is mistaken here. He is ignoring simple Macroeconomics when you apply simple Quantity Theory of Money you can see that with the increase of the Money supply then the costs of goods and other things would go up. This harms US exports as they become more expensive to other nations who, with lower MWs, wouldn't be able to afford as much of American goods vs. that of goods produced in their own nation or that of Asian nations. My own opponent's argument ignores inflation's affect's to the US dollar and ignores the fact that in 1912 the Federal Reserve was created and given the authority over US Monetary policy which can explain my opponent's "Something happened" source. ConclusionTo conclude we can see that despite the increasing of the MW may look tempting it is filled with many vices that causes harm to everyone across the board by harming our worst off citizens and harming future generations by creating more unskilled labor and high school droppouts. We will continue to see inflation skyrocket as we will see the cost of living move with it to be that unreachable goal that many attempt to aim for, but will never achieve. Sources are in the comments section.