The Instigator
connyd123
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
HoldenLewis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

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 2 votes the winner is...
connyd123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,218 times Debate No: 69264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

connyd123

Pro

Governments are morally obligated to their citizens to provide fundamental food security.
HoldenLewis

Con

Governments should not be responsible to provide food for their citizens

In response to Pros argument that Governments are "Morally obligated" to provide their citizens with food is like saying that you should always give the seagulls bread on the beach that are taking dives for your food.

Point 1: First of all, I do believe Everyone should have food available to them but I do not believe that the government should provide everyone in need of food with food. By the government providing food for everyone in need of it people will learn to live off of that without trying to earn it for themselves. Have your parents ever told you not to feed wild animals? (Not calling people in need of food animals in anyway but it's a very similar point) It's because if they don't fight for themselves they will never be able to live without it. People need to learn to live without the government providing everything for them. In conclusion if you learn to live off the government, you will be less likely to improve your situation.

Point 2: Just in America there are approximately 610,000 homeless people. On average it costs $294 to feed 1 person per month. So, if the government provide food for every homeless person in America it would cost over 2.1 billion dollars per year! Also, the amount would never decrease because (see first point) they would get used to the situation they are in instead of try and improve.

In closing no one should have to be hungry but the government should not have to pay to feed everyone. It would be too expensive and also would not motivate people to get jobs but discourage them from trying to get jobs because they don't need them to live.

Links used for statistics:

https://www.hudexchange.info...

http://www.loweryourspending.com...
Debate Round No. 1
connyd123

Pro

For the sake of making it easier to read, I'll address your points with my rebuttal underneath each claim you stated in your last argument.

I mean this in the nicest way, but I don't believe you have even looked up what food security even is.


"Governments should not be responsible to provide food for their citizens"
This is irrelevant to the debate topic. Food Security is the state of having reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food. This has nothing to do with providing direct aid for citizens.


"In response to Pros argument that Governments are "Morally obligated" to provide their citizens with food is like saying that you should always give the seagulls bread on the beach that are taking dives for your food."
You appear to try to be making an argument against a claim that was never brought up on my side. The argument on my side is that governments should be "Morally Obligated to provide fundamental Food Security." You seemed to have twisted my words, using an analogy of giving seagulls bread to a statement you gave about "governments being "morally obligated to provide their citizens with food.'" This is besides the point of the debate, as it is only to debate about the availability of food to be morally obligated by the government.



"Point 1: By the government providing food for everyone in need of it people will learn to live off of that without trying to earn it for themselves...People need to learn to live without the government providing everything for them. In conclusion if you learn to live off the government, you will be less likely to improve your situation."
No need to adress first part of your point-appears irrelevant to the true topic. Are you trying to say the government simply shouldn't have a role in ensuring food is available to it's citizens? If so, then assume all government programs like school lunches, food stamps, meals on wheels, and farming regulations were just stopped. No government regulated Imports or Exports on foods since the government supposedly shouldn't be allowed to insure food security. If you honestly believe food security shouldn't be obligated by the government, then please enjoy a society where agrigultral terriorism will soar, a rise in extreme poverty conditions due to minimum wage workers having no access to foods, and a rise of extreme obeisety and risk of heart attack due to the ill-regulations of food processing with cheap ingredients, and possibly illegal ones. This are just a few of the extreme issue we would face without government handled food security, so convince me otherwise.


"Point 2: Just in America there are approximately 610,000 homeless people. On average it costs $294 to feed 1 person per month. So, if the government provide food for every homeless person in America it would cost over 2.1 billion dollars per year! Also, the amount would never decrease because (see first point) they would get used to the situation they are in instead of try and improve."
Okay, again. this point is irrelevant to the topic of FOOD SECURITY. I don't want to begin on another topic about spending, considering this is still not the point of the debate, but if you truly think that spending over 2.1 billion dollars is "too much" to insure every person in America can actually eat, then wouldn't you agree maybe cut ending $610.096 BILLION DOLLARS ON MILITARY would be perfectly fine to make sure every person can sleep a little better,especially since the next 10 countries that spend less than us combined are all allies? And okay, so the homeless rely on food. This isn't going to discourage them from getting jobs, that's just ignorant. THEY ARE STILL HOMELESS. Do you personally just believe every homeless person is just going to STOP looking for a job now that they are living off minimal food requirements? And what makes you think homeless people actually could even GET a job as of today? Isn't that why they are homeless, because they can't GET a job? This statement is just ignorant.

"In closing no one should have to be hungry but the government should not have to pay to feed everyone. It would be too expensive and also would not motivate people to get jobs but discourage them from trying to get jobs because they don't need them to live."
So 2.1 Billion is too expensive to make sure every human in America can make ends meet off LIFE, but god forbid anyone cut something from are 610.096 Billion dollars in spending. and your argument about homeless people basically going to stop looking for jobs because they can make minimum eating isn't even close to even arbitrary. Your entire argument stands invalid.





HoldenLewis

Con

HoldenLewis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
connyd123

Pro

The Negative has failed to address the debate topic, as well as providing an argument with no reasonable points on food security. Affirmation has refuted the argument the negative has provided, however the Negative has denied the request to rebute the Affirmative on his argument. Vote Affirmative.
HoldenLewis

Con

HoldenLewis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MaqicDan 2 years ago
MaqicDan
I'm pretty certain, from the wording alone, this is a previous LD topic.
Posted by connyd123 2 years ago
connyd123
Quick type:
For those that don't know, Food Security is the ACCESSIBILITY of HEALTHY FOOD, not the act of giving out food to people in need of it.
Posted by Forthelulz 2 years ago
Forthelulz
Due to the ambiguous wording of this question, I'm putting down two scenarios. The first is a welfare program. The second is the practice of importing food to population centers in the event of a disaster.

Some heartbreaking stories about people under the first program:
Hey look, I'm a bum who refuses to work. I believe I deserve just as much food as the guy next to me, who puts his nose into the grindstone nine-to-five, five days a week.
Hi, I'm a female who made a very bad decision. I really should have thought ahead, but no. Reward me for making a bad decision, please.
Hey man, I'm a threatening-looking druggie. I'm going to get some food, then go back to my street corner. Don't come near me; I may have picked up a disease.
Hello, I'm a legitimately disabled person, who got in an industrial accident. I worked hard nine to five and then, out of nowhere, I get hurt and let go. I'm waiting in line between two ex-cons who qualify for this program too. Hey, it's that bum who stood next to me a while back. Darn, I hope they don't take all the good stuff before I get there.

For the second one:
Ah man, all this food expired, and nothing happened.
Yeah man, but it still beats a disaster happening to us when we're unprepared.
True that. Hey boys, warm up the composter! We're mitigating our losses by selling potting soil.

I'd be against the first one, and agree with the second one. For the first: Are there no 501C3's? For the uninitiated, that means nonprofits, such as churches, charities, and relief organizations. They run things like soup kitchens. For the second, disaster preparedness is a very good idea.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 2 years ago
chrisjachimiak
connyd123HoldenLewisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, and better arguments that pro had.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
connyd123HoldenLewisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture