The Instigator
cyndthesizer
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Thescarecrow066
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
cyndthesizer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 74307
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

cyndthesizer

Pro

The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing "when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life". Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences. In many countries, health problems related to dietary excess are an ever increasing threat, In fact, malnutrition and food borne diarrhea are become double burden.

Food security is built on three pillars:
Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.
Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

A just government protects the rights of its citizens. (1) Given that is the proper function of government, (2) and that the right to life is the most basic right and therefore the most in need of protection,(3) and it being shown that food insecurity is one of the most serious threats to life,(4) we can very clearly see that a just government ought to ensure food security for its citizens as a protection of their right to life.

Value:
Food sovereignty:
is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.
In this debate this is crucial because the resolution is debating on the availability of food for all citizens.

Criteria:
Maximization of welfare:
we ought to do that which allows people, not merely to exist, but to thrive. To
maximize welfare means to take steps which allows individuals to achieve their full potential, to get the most of what they can from a situation. This is crucial because by the execution of food security, it would give all citizens a boost in their potential.

Contention 1: We are fully capable, so why not?

The economic framework that each society has, results in different distributions of economic benefits and burdens across members of the society. These economic frameworks are the result of human political processes and they constantly change both across societies and within societies over time. The structure of these frameworks is important because the economic distributions resulting from them fundamentally affect people's lives. Arguments about which frameworks and/or resulting distributions are morally preferable constitute the topic of distributive justice. Principles of distributive justice are therefore best thought of as providing moral guidance for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of economic benefits societies.
Scholars such as Raj Patel and Marion Nestle have explored the effect governments" and corporations" produce in the global food system. According to their research: there is enough food produced on the globe annually to feed the world"s daily needs two and a half times over. If there is enough food why are people starving? The topic seeks to navigate this paradox. Each year the planet experiences a historical first. Annually more and more food is produced, while at the same time more than 800 million starve. Simultaneously the number of obese individuals rises. Record food production, record starvation, and record obesity. Authors who criticize this global food regime argue that obesity and starvation are both symptoms of the same catastrophe-food insecurity. Food security is not only about a distinction between stuffed and starved, food security is determined by a persons access to not only food, but a persons ability to have nutritious food if they desire so.
As people of this day and age where we have the whole world in our palm it is disgusting to see how much we waste. We have a vast abundance of food. Globally we waste enough food to feed all those who are starving and have left-overs for seconds. See the amount of food that people throw away on a daily basis is truly astonishing. The grocery store for example has every food imaginable. Groceries throw away food all the time when the food item might just have a dent or a bruise. We can use this food. It follows all health regulations and it would be a win-win situation for both sides.

Contention 2: It will help society and the economy

Food security is a vital aspect of the globe because the more starving people there are there are, the less the jobs being executed. This causes a huge catastrophe for the economy and the government. For example, the Roman Empire, during the end of the empire there is a huge decline of their people this happened only because there was a lot of Malaria virus in the area and the people of the Roman Empire figured out a way to control the virus and then a new strain came in brought up from another group of travelling nomads and this new strain they were unable to adapt to. This caused a decline in people which meant fewer jobs were being done and people died because they weren't able to purchase necessary items because they either didn't have the money for it or they simply were not able to obtain the item. This caused the huge, rapid, and deathly ed to one of the strongest and largest Empires. If there are too many jobs and not enough people to the job the company loses its money, the products are wasted, the land is wasted, and the economy declines. Slowly and steadily the country begins to become a vat of empty houses, empty businesses, and starving people. If everybody had food and worked for the sake of working to get things like cars and other high end items the world would resolve many of its problems too. So the government would get double the benefit. They would have more people to govern and they wouldn't have to worry about people killing each other for food.
Abraham Maslow who said that a person needs to meet their basic needs before they can even consider moving higher. A perfect example would be me, I need to have food before I can really bunker down and try writing this debate. I need food before I can concentrate. In fact every school says that before you sit down or an exam it would be a good idea to have a large and healthy breakfast. So according to all those studies and Maslow having food is a necessity and no person should be denied that right.
Thescarecrow066

Con

Its going to be hard for the government(s) to control the food security, The potion remains to the government. This will be not as hard for third world countrys the ones that provide food for their citizens but in wealthy states like the U.S there are thousands of food brand which will cost too much time and effort for a little cause.
Debate Round No. 1
cyndthesizer

Pro

What my opponent has failed to realize is what a just government is and should be. For a government to be just, shouldn't they ensure food security? If citizens are starving, shouldn't they make an effort to help that cause? We waste a lot of government funds on programs that aren't beneficial to the people. We can use that energy and money and direct it to food security instead. We're not feeding people luxurious food, instead he are providing for their basic needs.

And because my opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions, I shall assume he agrees with them.
This is why this resolution will and must stand.
Thescarecrow066

Con

Thescarecrow066 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cyndthesizer

Pro

cyndthesizer forfeited this round.
Thescarecrow066

Con

What YOU are failing to realize is that this is going to take too long to feed people what you consider "luxurious" people will not care what they are given and and should be great full for the food provided in stores near them instead your claiming luxurious food should be fed to everyone, well what do you consider to be luxurious? If you gave a home less person a bag of apples is he going to ask for something more luxurious? The government needs to supply food, water, and safety if people are going to complain about how there not being served "proper food" how is it the governments fault? The Government needs only to provide for the STANDARDS of it's citizens. The government aren't and won't give every homeless man steak dinner at the local restaurant. And if people are having such horrible problems well then they should have worked harder in life immigrants on the other hand have an excuse but no one in the U.S can help EVERYONE starving in the U.S and getting the government to do this is stupid and will not be reconginzed to be a MAJOR problem. If your plan for food security is to feed people hundred dollar steaks then your way off the economy.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Thescarecrow066 1 year ago
Thescarecrow066
This is my argument for my absence of the round,

What YOU are failing to realize is that this is going to take too long to feed people what you consider "luxerious" people will not care what they are given and and should be great full for the food provided in stores near them instead your claiming luxerious food should be fed to everyone, well what do you consider to be luxerious? If you gave a home less person a bag of apples is he going to ask for something more luxerious? The goverment needs to supply food, water, and safety if people are going to complain about how there not being served "proper food" how is it the goverments fault? The Goverment needs only to provide for the STANDARDS of it's citizens. Thegoverment arn't and won't give evry homeless man steak dinner at the local restraunt. And if people are having such horrible problems well then they should have worked harder in life imigrants on the other hand have an excuse but no one in the U.S can help EVERYONE starving in the U.S and getting the goverment to do this is stupid and will not be reconginzed to be a MAJOR problem.
Posted by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
you should send this challenge to this guy

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Ctrl + C
Ctrl + V
Lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 1 year ago
CASmnl42
cyndthesizerThescarecrow066Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con forfeited a round, and then came back shouting. S&G: Con - learn the difference between "its" and "it's" before ever typing again. Arguments: Pro made an argument. Con barely made an effort, and then came roaring in the final round with non-sequiturs about feeding homeless people $100 steaks. Reading comprehension seems low - that was very explicitly *not* Pro's argument. Sources: None cited by either side