The Instigator
Maxsteel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Can Right to Food eradicate hunger in India ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 85887
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Maxsteel

Pro

I am trying to argue that the poverty alleviation programmers and right to food acts have eradicated a large part of starvation in India . If anyone wants to oppose this point pls join this debate.
condeelmaster

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Maxsteel

Pro

As my Worthy opponent mentioned that many people murder others they don't just roam the country like a free person . This is India and it has one of the the strongest and most powerful judiciaries ever. Anybody who murders cannot just go like that they get the required punishment for the crime they have committed and arrested by the police even if they hide in any part of the country. But my opponent must remember that what we're talking about here is if citizens are getting proper food accessibility with governments help. Obviously the Indian government has introduced programmers like mid day meal system which means children at schools get their afternoon meal and do not need to go home to get food. This also results in them getting concentrated more in education. Next the government has also introduced subsidy on many products so that the poor can buy and uplift the status.
condeelmaster

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Maxsteel

Pro

Well all right Con states that I mentioned hunger is eradicated in India with governmental help . Now I'll jot down how right to food eradicate hunger in India. First of all right to food is a human right protecting the right for people to feed themselves in dignity, implying that sufficient food is available that people have the means to access it, and that it adequately meets the individuals dietary needs. The right food protects the right of all human beings to be free from starvation, food insecurity and malnutrition . It is not necessary that the government must provide free food to the people but in case of war and disaster it is the duty of the government to provide food. Any discrimination against an individual decreasing his access to food violates this right. The programme called mid day meal which I mentioned about in the previous round is also a part of this act. Besides there is also PDS system which is present in every corner of India . The right follows the 3A rule which is
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.
condeelmaster

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
Maxsteel

Pro

First of all thanks to Condeelmaster for repeating my line and making me more famous. 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 never said that actually I told that the right to food makes the government to do certain activities that the citizens can benefit from. He also said that pre historic men were free of chaos which might be true. 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.
condeelmaster

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 4
Maxsteel

Pro

I don't know why Con always speaks out of the topic. When 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 . Doesn't he know how corrupt today's government is . Con is just constantly saying that the government helps. 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 . Similarly the right to food does the same too. So Con next please don't say I spoke out of the topic this just I used to prove you wrong. And one more thing after every time you pls don't mention 'Resolution negated' because that makes no sense.
condeelmaster

Con

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 ;)


Conclusion

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!!!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
See all the debate is based on this topic Can right to food eradicate hunger in India ? Those who say that people already have the right for food then why are lot of people still poor.
Posted by HSamei1999 1 year ago
HSamei1999
What do you want to debate? I do not understand what you are trying to say
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
It's NFWP ( National Food For Work Programme ) typing mistake below .
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
Can somebody possibly be the contender ?
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
See all I just hear many people say that India still is suffering from poverty so I mean to argue in food security that the government has alleviated man food problems in India by introducing programmers like NFWP ( National a Food a For Work Programme ).
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
Vice regent I'm just a 14 yr old kid who has a doubt if the Indian government has not done anything for the poor.
Posted by HSamei1999 1 year ago
HSamei1999
I am unsure as to what exactly you are trying to say, so could you please clarify what you are trying to argue by saying the government can alleviate poverty in india, I might accept if you mean they can alleviate poverty.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Poverty*
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
I wonder how much of his own pay Maxsteel gave to help elevate poor last year?
Posted by Maxsteel 1 year ago
Maxsteel
But what I'm saying is that has it eradicated poverty by removing hunger. The government just needs to do more for the people .
No votes have been placed for this debate.