Can Right to Food eradicate hunger in India ?
Debate Rounds (5)
Thanks for the debate. Good luck!
Pro argues that the right to food can eradicate hunger in India. But this is actually idealistic rather than realistic.
Having a right does not mean that right will be always exercised. For instance, humans have the right to live, and governments create laws against activities that put in danger the lives of the citizens (like murder). However, many people die in hands of others, many people murder others. What I'm showing here is that having your rights does not mean they will be respected, neither that you will always enjoy them.
Let's remember the resolution: Can Right to Food eradicate hunger in India ?
We are not discussing if governmental policies can eradicate hunger. That is what Pro stated last round and has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. The discussion here is if right to food can eradicate hunger.
My opponent has to prove that having the right to food ensures the eradication of hunger and I must prove that having the right to food does not ensure the eradication of hunger.
As far this debate has gone, Pro proved that governmental help can promote the eradication of hunger. However he still has to prove how the right to food ensures the eradication of hunger. On the other hand, I proved in the last round, that having the right to food does not mean the eradication of hunger. Resolution negated, vote Con.
1. Availability which means there is enough food in store ( buffer stock ).
2. Affordability which means if citizen can buy food with the money they have,
3. Accessibility which means if the citizens can access food within that region.
I don't think I can explain the Con much detailed than this. It seems nice because I am a 14 yr old kid who is debating with a strong contender . All votes for me guys.
First of all thanks Maxsteel for this: "I am a 14 yr old kid who is debating with a strong contender ." I'm blushing hahahah
Getting back to the debate It seems that Pro makes the assumption that there is a link between rights and the government. As I understood from the last round, Pro is proposing that the government is giving the right to food to the Indians. Pro is saying that the Indian government gave the right to food to Indians and that is helping to eradicate poverty.
This implicates that humans have no rights at all. That humans get their rights from the government. This is totally wrong and I will show you why.
Humans have natural rights. Human rights are innate, part of the human nature. No government can give someone the right to food because everybody already has the right to food. As a proof of this let's think about the most natural state of the men: the pre historical men. Then, humans were independent and free, but there was not chaos. From that natural state we can define what natural rights are. Natural rights are what conforms the natural law, the rights humans had in their natural state: right to live, right to food, right to free will, etc. What matters to this debate is this: the right to food is a natural right for humans. Humans have always had the right to food.
"I don't think Con has exactly read what I have written properly because he said that I mentioned that the government gives the right of to people ."
I know Pro did not say it directly. Anyway, It's something that is deducted from his argument.
" actually I told that the right to food makes the government to do certain activities that the citizens can benefit from."
This is my whole point. It is the government which is helping in India, not the right to food. If there was no government, right to food would still exist but people would be starving. Thus, right to food does not eradicate hunger.
"But he must know that India would also have been chaos free and it would be a hunger free country if the British didn't invade. So blame the British not the government."
Well, I can't argue with that. However, this does not prove Pro's resolution.
So Pro actually didn't refute any of my arguments yet. Then, the resolution is negated.
What I showed throughout the debate is that the right to food cannot eradicate hunger, not only in India, but anywhere. The right to food is something every human being has, however hunger has always existed in the written history. THis proves that the right to food is not capable by itself of eradicating hunger. Is the human action what eradicates hunger. Human action, by governmental help, by ONG's, by private charities, is what is capable of eradicating hunger.
" I'm trying to mention that right to food has ultimate power that it forces the government to help the people but he says that still I'm mentioning that the government helps the people"
This is my whole point here. It is the government that helps the people, not the right to food. The right to food is just a characteristic of humans, it can't eradicate hunger. Pro argued that food forces the government to help people but that's not true. As you know, many governments don't give a sh*t about rights. So the right to food does not have the ultimate power to force governments to do stuff.
" Do you know that we (in most countries) still live in democracy because of the rules that the past thinkers and great people have made. If not anybody who is dominant can come and dictate us ."
This is quite subjective. Many great thinkers have argued that democracy and governments are dangerous and that without government the people can be truly free. Anyway, this one could be a great topic for another debate.
" And one more thing after every time you pls don't mention 'Resolution negated' because that makes no sense."
That's just a conclusion marker, a reminder that I showed the resolution is false. But well, if you don't like it I won't say it ;)
Rights are just a characteristic of the human nature. However, rights can not ensure nothing to ourselves. Is the human action what changes the world. If humans respect rights, rights will be ensured. But as long as humanity keeps being disrespectful towards rights, rights will be just a reminder of what we could have been.
Rights are something that all human beings have. Nevertheless, non of those rights are ensure totally. We have the right to life, to dignity, to food, to free will, to private property... Anyway, people is murdered, humiliated, starving, censured, stolen... This is the ultimate empirical prove that rights cannot eradicate anything. Then, the right to food cannot eradicate hunger, not in India, not in anywhere.
Thanks for the debate! Good luck to my opponent!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.