Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
cyndthesizer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 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:||5||0|
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
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.