On Wednesday, March 12th, at 7pm in Perini Lecture Hall, the Thomas More Debate Society had their annual public debate which was part of the MLK Jr. Celebration of Events. The topic of the debate was: Should a living wage be a civil right? 

Coach David Trumble says “This was the 12th year the team held a debate on a topic involving civil rights/civil liberties as part of the program.” Arguing for the Affirmative, or side of a living wage as a civil right, was Eliana Romero (’27) and Bella Uva (’26). On the Negative, or against a living wage as a civil right, was Reagan Ellsworth (’28) and Anthony Walters (’25). 

Coach Trumble explained that “The students work for six weeks doing research to get ready for each of the debates. It is a format based on evidence and analysis, with both sides given equal time to speak and do cross-examination.” After weeks of preparation, it was evident that both sides had done in-depth research and had carefully crafted powerful arguments.

The Affirmative side began with Eliana Romero, who gave a definition of a civil right and a living wage before launching into her argument. A livable wage is a wage a person receives which is enough to support that person’s necessities such as food, housing, education, health care, and child support. A civil right is a right that is given out to people by their government that protects their freedom and equality. The arguments for the affirmative were that a living wage would lift millions of people in the United States out of poverty and allow individuals and families housing and food security. They also made the claim that a living wage would help to span wage gaps in gender and minority groups. Part of their argument used the raising of the minimum wage in the US as an example, since a living wage has never before been implemented by a country, only by large global corporations. Eliana and Bella argued that if raising the minimum wage from seven dollars (where it’s been since 2009) to ten dollars would help millions, why not implement a living wage that would help everyone?

On the Negative side, Reagan began with some contentions of the Affirmative points. She made the argument that a living wage would not be a civil right, because the government would not be the one giving it, the businesses and companies would be giving it to people. So it would actually be government overreach into the private sector, and it could actually cause more discrimination. Companies would be more inclined to hire single people than people who need to support families, because people with families to support would require a higher livable wage. The Negative side also argued that the unknowns about the effect of implementing a living wage are too risky and that simply raising the minimum wage would be easier and safer. They also used the minimum wage as an example, but this time talked about the inflation it causes. A living wage could cause a much larger amount of inflation than just raising the minimum wage. Anthony and Reagan thought that raising the minimum wage was the best and safest way to help combat poverty.

Both groups agreed that something needs to be done, and that raising the minimum wage would help a lot of people, especially since it has not been raised nationally since 2009. The debate was very interesting and both sides made excellent points. 

One student in the audience commented afterwards that “It was very interesting! I learned a lot from both sides, and they both made such good points that I didn’t know who to agree with!” Another student recommended events like this for the fun and educational experiences they provide.

 Coach Trumble added that “These public debates are a great opportunity for a vigorous discussion on important topics of public policy.” They not only provide a safe and respectful place for the discussion of political and social issues, but they also provide the audience with an opportunity to learn about the issues from different perspectives and the weeks of research by the team members. Coach Trumble commented, saying “Our goal is to dig down into the underlying values and questions of practicality. We hope the audience is challenged to think about both sides of a topic and come away with fresh ideas. It is more important than ever to have respectful debates on important issues.” 

There will be another debate on April 10th, held in the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, if any students are interested in attending.