TJLD DEBATE
JAN/FEB TOPIC ANALYSIS
**Just governments ought to require that
employers pay a living wage**
1
[AR]
TJLD DEBATE
JAN/FEB TOPIC ANALYSIS
2
[AR]
**Definitions**
Living Wage: (Business Dictionary) the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard
of living within the community. The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies
depending on location.
Just governments: This will be central to the framework issue, because you’ll be focused on what constitutes a ‘just’
government’, and why is that so. The concept of just government should be complemented with the word ‘ought’.
Don’t make just = Justice AND at the same ought = moral obligation, because then you’re unnecessarily
complicating the framework. IMO basing the definition off the framework that you want is the clearest way to
define just and ought (e.g. Distributive Justice strat would probably need a definition of just = fair, and ought =
obligation).
Ought: desirability is a good definition of ought if you’re focused on emphasizing impacts. On the other hand, if you
care more about morality being your value, then make ought = moral obligation and then define just governments
maybe as ‘a government that practices moral principles’.
Employers: have a definition just in case. This probably won’t be ‘central’ to the debate other than the fact that
employers are the medium that the government uses to provide the living wage.
TJLD DEBATE
JAN/FEB TOPIC ANALYSIS
3
[AR]
**Aff**
Strat #1: Equality of Opportunity
This strat would involve more of an equality-based framework with the idea that all people should be able to fulfill
their basic needs including food, water, and shelter. This definition might be extended to single families specifically
(e.g. in a contention you could argue that single families have different needs). Equality framework would NOT be a
traditional Util FW, where economy would matter. Therefore, this strat would help those who emphasize the
framework debate.
Strat #2: Distributive Justice
The framework of this strat is similar to Rawlsian Justice. We ought to distribute social services in the country in
such a way that all people benefit the most possible WITHOUT hurting others. Therefore, this is NOT a socialist
framework, but it’s the best that capitalist society can do to equalize the economic system. This framework could be
employed with Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance.
Strat #3 Social Contract
This strat is similar to equal opportunity strat, but instead of employing the framework of equality, the framework
for this strat uses the concept of ‘security’. When people sacrifice their absolute freedom to do whatever they want
(look up social contract to understand absolute freedom a.k.a. True freedom), and choose to uphold the rules and
principles of society, they should be given the ability to secure necessary prerequisites to their lives. These pre-reqs
include: food security, shelter, etc. Therefore, in order for the government to fulfill the obligation to promote
security, it must mandate a living wage.
General Advice:


On Util Frameworks, the MOST common arguments against Living wage are most likely:
o Living Wage -> Unemployment
o Living Wage -> Poverty
So make sure to have BLOCKS or TURNS to ^those arguments.
TJLD DEBATE
JAN/FEB TOPIC ANALYSIS
4
[AR]
**Neg**
Strat #1: Property Rights
This IMO is the simplest strat. The argument is that governments do not directly own the money that employers
pay to employees. Therefore, the governments have no right to the employer’s property (money). In that case, just
governments should not mandate a living wage because it violates the property rights of employers. Although this is
a very easy-to-understand strat, it might require some tweaks to make it interesting (otherwise its too generic and
easy to refute).
Strat #2: Economic Freedoms
This strat probably involves the longest framework in the neg ideas. The assumption that governments must
promote as much as freedom for businesses because they are key to the economy. Therefore the government
should not interfere in business affairs unless it is necessary to avoid economic collapse. In this strat, even a
MINIMUM wage isn’t necessary. The free market determines wages in this strat, NOT by a minimum or living wage.
That’s the end of the regular TA. Be sure to email/message me if you have any questions! - Aneesh Reddy
TJLD DEBATE
JAN/FEB TOPIC ANALYSIS
5
[AR]
**Progressives**
NOTE: THESE STRATS SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS? ASK ME!
Aff
Strat #1: Capitalism K Aff
This strat involves Marxist arguments, but also reasonability arguments about capitalism vs. socialism. The basic
idea is that capitalism promotes class divide, racism, sexism, etc., and therefore rejecting capitalism is key to
promote human values of equality, fairness, and even life. However, rejecting capitalism directly through a socialist
revolution only exacerbates death, racism, and sexism, (communist USSR evidence). Therefore, the aff thesis is to
reject capitalism by reducing class gap, racism, and sexism through a living wage. This strat needs the following
arguments:
1. Capitalism bad (promotes racism, sexism, inequality, etc.)
2. Socialist Revolution can’t solve (this can be AS SIMPLE AS a two sentence spike observation)
3. Living Wage solves for inequality, racism, and sexism (and therefore rejects capitalistic notions)
I personally love this strat because it doesn’t need much preparation (evidence is aplenty). Only problem is that this
strat is WAY too common in the national circuit.
Strat #2: Plan Affs
There is a TON of plan affs for this resolution. Note however that topicality can be run on plan affs so you might
want to prep on T with others if you want to run a Plan.
1. Country-based Plan (USFG, Republic of India, People’s Republic of China, etc.): IMO these will be the MOST
susceptible to Topicality, but if you want to make this a Util debate with tons of links to extinction then this
is the best strat for you.
2. Employees-based Plan (Prisoner employees, non-teen employees, etc.): these are MUCH harder to
implement because of the lack of evidence. BUT, if you make one well, then you probably won’t hit a good
topicality shell against the case and the impacts could definitely help you win. I will probably be making
some of these cases so message me if you’re interested.
3. International Institutions Plan: this is a plan that encompasses a living wage for the ENTIRE globe, and
specifies that location determines the living wage (e.g. NYC has a higher living wage than a village in South
America). This is the weirdest plan IMO, but if you like international law debates than I guess it’s not a bad
strat.
Neg
Strat #1: EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) CP:
This is a good strat if the Aff reads Poverty Advantages. EITC is proven to reduce poverty whereas living wages are
not necessarily aimed at the poor. Therefore, you could easily turn Poverty. However, this strat is REALLY prone to
a perm by Aff, so make sure to have some level of mutual exclusivity (layer it!).
Start #2: Capitalism K (surprise!):
This strat is NOT the same as the Capitalism K Aff. In this strat, the assumption that capitalism CANNOT solve its
negative impacts (racism, sexism, inequality, etc.), therefore the capitalist society must be fundamentally
reconstructed by [insert alt]. The reason why there’s not clear alt is because socialist revolution is usually the
default, but because the aff could argue that socialist revolutions don’t work, it leads to an impasse. There are a
few solutions, but IMO it’ll take some time to find a good one. Overall, this is a great strat if you love K debate (it’s
a lot more critical than the aff version).