Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens
Debate Rounds (5)
Resolved: Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens
A government needs to protect their citizens.
One in every nine people on our planet go to bed hungry each night. This evidence just showed how many people are sent home hungry each night. One in nine people hungry at night is a ratio not many people want to hear. This is very bad. A just government can"t allow this. This leads me to my next piece of evidence.
Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five " 3.1 million children each year. 45%. To me, this can"t be allowed. When 45% of children deaths are caused by hunger, hunger is clearly a serious problem. For a government to be just they must be fair to people and ensure food security. Only an injust government would allow people to die and have hungry nights.
I will contend states do not have moral obligations.
Contention 1: The government is made of multiple actors so it can"t be held morally culpable.
The United States government, and all governments for that matter are made up of multiple parts, and it would be irrational to hold one part of that morally culpable. It would be illogical to hold a Senator morally culpable for actions taken in Senate if they voted against it. Even if the affirmative says that accountability is important this would not be sufficient to prove why moral culpability itself is (1) possible for government and (2) more important than the culpability that the government has to its other obligations. Requirements that depend for their force on some external source of authority turn out to be inescapable because the authority behind them can be questioned. We can ask, "why should I act on this desire?" or "why should I obey the U.S. government? Any purported source of practical authority depends on reasons for obeying it"and hence on the authority of reasons. Suppose, then, that we attempted to question the authority of reasons themselves. Since governments can"t reflect on the reasons for actions they can"t be held morally culpable. Even if providing food security to citizens is a moral act on its own accord, the government doesn't have the ability to be held morally culpable for the action of providing food or not.
Contention 2: Consent determines moral obligations but the government cannot consent to morality as a whole.
Consent determines moral obligations, but the government cannot consent to morality as a whole. Therefore it is not bound to the same obligations of upholding morality as an individual is. Even if the affirmative gives reasons why the government acts consistently with morality, it would have to prove that the cause of the actions is morality-if they don"t then it would simply be correlation. Intentional refers first and foremost to the self-awareness of the presence of the purpose and the self-awareness of the mental states leading to its realization. That is, of course, precisely why we refrain from claiming that someone is responsible for her actions when she is unaware of what she is doing, especially when she could not have been aware. The acknowledgements of self-awareness is necessary for the attribution of moral agency.
Now onto my opponents case.
"Poor nutrition causes nearly half of deaths in children under five." The justness of a government ought to be seen through multiple lenses. A government can be justified in some things that they do, if they in-fact do things morally just. A government ought to not be required to provide food security under my core value of Justice. Justice as defined is what a government owes their citizens. The government in fact does not owe their citizens food security, but ought to owe them security. Ought implies an obligation, and the United States does not have an obligation to fill with food security.
My opponent's first contention is that a government can't be held accountable because it has multiple parts, but this is false. Checks and balances allow a government to be made accountable. An accountable government is just, so government must be accountable to be a just government. Since a just government is the agent of action in this case they must be accountable. This means his 1st contention can't stand
His second contention was a government has no moral obligation. This can't happen because then a government has no reason to exist if they fail to represent the people. Also, when we look at social contract this can't happen because when we work the government is entitled to help us.
In his attack on my first contention, he said the government doesn't owe us food security. They in fact do according to social contract. Also, a government has no reason to exist if they don't work for the people.
Justice can be measured in helping people contrary to my opponen
Opponents Case- My opponent has no value, which therefore he accepts mine. I will reiterate my value of justice because a government does not owe the people anything. Neither morally nor constitutionally.
Opponents 1st point: Essentially a just government must require food security to correct hunger. This is completely false. What a just government must require is security and safety. Food security is not justified under the US constitution. No where in the Bill of Rights does it say "The Government owes the citizens food security."
His attacks on my case-
1. Government Can't be held accountable. Checks and Balances allow a government to be made accountable. I agree, but but you missed my whole point in general. To put it into more understandable terms, A democrat can not be mad at a republican senate or house for a bill failing. Food security will never be passed, due to the fact that the law itself is not supported under the United States Constitution and the fact that it is irrational.
2. My opponent said a government has to have moral obligation or else there is no need for them. This again is false, due to the fact that a government doesn't owe a poor person money and doesn't owe a person food security. A government is just if it is morally right in most of it's actions. Providing food security isn't a matter of morality, but instead a matter of outrageous. Food security is outrageous.
I want to point out a few flaws in my opponents case.
He brought up a statistic about hungry people in the world. He failed to provide the full statistic, just picking and choosing what he wanted you to hear. He is the full statistic provided by 
"The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15 percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people undernourished in developed countries." Now you might ask, why is this relevant? Well, almost 852 million people that were hungry live in developing countries. My opponent said that under the Social Contract that the government owes these people the right to live a happy life. Well, these developing countries don't have a social contract. These countries are not required under any laws, well neither is the United States, to provide food security for their citizens.
My framework, which my opponent lacks, remains un-touched. As does my value, which I achieve better than my opponent. I urge a con ballot
In my first contention attack he says that governments have no obligation to give us food. He says they only owe us security and safety, but I will refute that by saying that isn't food security a type of security. This means that Food security should be granted according to my opponent. He also states the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee food security, but the resolution states a Just Government as the agent not the United States
Now on to attack my opponent's case
Contention 1: His claim was a government can't be held accountable. I stated checks and balances make a government accountable. He agreed with that, thus disproving his 1st contention. Also, my opponent brings up the Constitution as a reason not to support it, but the resolution does not specify the US so that argument falls.
Contention 2: He says that a government doesn't have to enforce food security, but to be a just government according to John Rawls we must be fair and it is not fair to allow people to starve.
I will now go on to attack the flaws he stated in my case and go on to give key flaws in his case.
My flaws as he stated
Flaw 1: He stated that my hunger argument is irrelevant because this is happening in developing countries. He says that there is no social contract. This would mean that every government is a dictatorship because they aren't their for the people. A dictatorship is not a fair government so there is a social contract. It also matters that this is happening in developing countries because to be a just government they must help the people no matter how rich or poor.
Flaw 2: He says I fail to give legit framework but
My framework is just as legitimate as his because I give contentions I am just accepting the value of Justice.
It is for these reasons I urge a pro ballot
chrisjachimiak forfeited this round.
MrMoney forfeited this round.
I'll start off with a rebuttal of my opponents arguments on my case, then I will move onto his case.
My Contention 1: His arguments are not making sense at all to this. If he could elaborate, that would be fantastic.
My Contention 2: My opponent claimed that to be a just government, you must require food security. My opponent no where provides a defines a Just Government, so without a proper definition, the resolution must read that a government ought to require food security. I state that a government will not require food security, because they're not morally right. My opponent in his 1AC failed to provide a definition of a just government so therefore I win that point.
I will continue to hold up the fact that considering no definitions of a just government have been put out there that the resolution must read that a government ought to require food security.
My value of Justice still holds this up better, because it is unjust to put the faults of a country onto their government. So therefore just because someone is poor, does not make it the governments moral obligation to provide food security.
I urge a negative ballot in today's debate, due to the inherent abuse that my opponent has brought upon me by not providing a set definition.
MrMoney forfeited this round.
I extend all previous arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by williamfoote 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Aff did both a bad job defending his case and attacking his opponent's. Con, create your own cases, don't repy of BFI. Otherwise, you're going to lose a lot of rounds.
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.