The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
That1User
Pro (for)
Losing
2 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 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,253 times Debate No: 70151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)

 

Zaradi

Con

The resolution is Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

This is intended to be an LD debate. If you do not intend to debate it as if it were such a thing, or are unfamiliar with the technicalities and terminology of LD debate, please refrain from accepting. All types of case structures are acceptable.

The round structure will break down like this:

Round One: Neg presents debate, Aff posts case
Round Two: Neg case + rebuttals, Aff rebuttals
Round Three: Neg Rebuttals, Aff rebuttals.

No new arguments may be used in the final round.

Good luck to whomever accepts.
That1User

Pro

First I would like to thank Zaradi for creating this debate and look foward to debating this. Now I will provide definitions.
Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good
governments: The system by which something is governed (plural)
food secruity: One's access and/or ability to meet their basic caloric needs.

Since there are multiple ethical systems I will show how a government ensuring food secruity for their citizens is moral under multiple ethical systems:
Argument from Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism states: "an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness""not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. (http://www.britannica.com...)
If the government ensures food secruity for their citizens, then its citizens meets basic food needs, which significantly reduces poverty and the suffering of its citizens, including reducing the suffering of starving men, women, and children. Not only would it reduce the suffering of citizens, but it would also make citizens healthier and thus happier. Healthier and happier citizens means political stability (there were many wars/revolutions/riots started because of lack of food, such as the French Revolution. , http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as more productivity in the economy (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...). If people are not hungry and are happy and healthy, they are more likely to work more. Thus, if a government ensures food secruity for its citizens, then it will be a net benefit for everyone, and thus a government will be just under utilitarianism if they provide food secruity for its citizens. In order to utilize the good the most effectively, a government would have to ensure food security for their citzens, thus a just government ought to ensure food secruity for their citizens under utilitarianism.

Situational Ethics:
Situational Ethics states that love is the only thing intrinsicly good is love, which defined as " desiring and acting to promote the wellbeing of people" and that one of the highest manifesations of good (love) is human welfare ("the well being and social support for all citizens"http://en.wikipedia.org... )(http://www.bbc.co.uk...)
Since food secruity both desires the well being of people by meeting their caloric needs and is a policy that acts to provide these caloric needs, it is a loving policy, and therefore under these terms governments would be just if it ensured food secruity for their citizens, thus a just government ought to ensure food security for their citizens under situational ethics.

Mohism:
According to Mohism what is ethical is determined by: "Actions, practices, and policies that promote the overall welfare of society were to be considered morally right, those that interfere with it morally wrong." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Welfare is defined as: "the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Part of the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens is the secruity of food, thus under mohism food secruity is morally right, and if a government interfered with food secruity it would be morally wrong under mohism. Therefore, under Mohism, just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Duty Ethics:
Under Duty Ethics we have a moral duty to do the following things:
(Pufendorf)
avoid wronging others,
treat people as equals, and
promote the good of others.
(http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Governments can avoid wronging others, treat people as equals, and promote the good of others by ensuring food secruity for their citizens, since, according to Pufendorf, humans have a moral duty to do these things,and a government is comprised of humans, it follows that governments have a moral duty to do these things as well. Since what is just can be defined by duty ethics, and duty ethics states that it is a moral duty to do these things, and food security fufills these moral qualifications, it can be concluded that just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens under Duty Ethics.

According to British philosopher W.D. Ross moral duties break down to:
Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
Justice: the duty to recognize merit
Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others
(http://www.iep.utm.edu...)
One of these is Beneficience: The duty to improve the conditions of others.
Since governments ensuring food secruity for their citizens improves their conditions, it would fufill a moral duty, and thus be a just government according to Duty Ethics once again. Since what is just can be defined by duty ethics, and duty ethics states that it is a moral duty to do these things, and food security fufills these moral qualifications, it can be concluded that just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens under Duty Ethics.

Care Ethics:
According to care ethics humans have a moral obligation to care for one another. (similiar to Situational Ethics) Caring for one another as defined by care ethics means "maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) Since ensuring food secruity is a form of meeting the basic needs of others, then under care ethics just governments would ensure food security for their citizens. And since what is just is defined as "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good:, and ensuring food security is morally upright and good, then under Care Ethics a just government ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Conclusion:
In conclusion what is just is defined as "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good", and since multiple ethical systems have stated that food security is morally upright or good, then a just government ought to ensure food security for their citizens. (Note: In the next round I plan on focusing on the ought part of the debate more so than the just, as what is just has already been defined in this round. I wish Zaradi luck in the next round.)
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

God is dead. The affirmative’s appeal to the good is empty. Their values are groundless---unhinged from a source of ultimate significance, making them infinitely exchangeable. Their secular humanism is a cruel hoax: the thinly veiled attempt to resurrect the decaying corpse of the Christian god simultaneously kills him. Nietzsche:

Freidrich Nietzsche, Philosopher, late 19th Century

(“Parable of the Madman.” Online)

  • "I seek God!"Whither is God?" … "I will tell you. We have killed himHow shall we comfort ourselvesWhat was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." … "I have come too early," … "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. … deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

The affirmative will brush off the death of God as irrelevant. Even without the firm guidelines of Christianity, we still have obvious ethical maxims to hang our hats on. Their thesis will be that morality can infuse action even without proof of a transcendental placeholder from which it is derived. But it is precisely in such a condition, when the telos of the good has vanished and the yearning for it remains, that morality transforms into its cheap opposite---a moralizing vengeance serving only as a hysterial mask for the vertigo of God’s vacuum. Brown:

Wendy Brown, Political Theory @ UC Berkeley, 2k1

(Politics Out of History. P 28-29

  • the loss ofepistemological ground for … morality … does not quash the moral impulse itself. what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good .. . ? It is when the telos of the good vanishes but the yearning for it remains that morality appears to devolve into moralism … at this point that one finds moralizers standing against much but for very little, adopting a voice of moral judgment in the absence of a full-fledged moral … vision. … the moralizer refuses the loss of the teleological and becomes reactionary: clinging without logical ground to the last comforting frame in the unraveling narrativeDespite its righteous insistence on knowing what is True, Valuable, or Important, moralism … marks both analytic impotence and … aimlessnessthe moralizing injunction to act, … might be read as a symptom of … paralysis in the face of radical … disorientation and as a hysterical mask for the despair that attends such paralysis. … a life force flattened into a passive or paralyzed stance toward the world turns against life as it turns against itself; … it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis …”

The affirmative’s moralizing results in an inner-war against the self that outweighs all violence. Nietzsche 2:

Freidrich Nietzsche, Philosopher, 1887

(On the Genealogy of Morals. 2.16)

  • I consider bad conscience the profound illness which human beings had to come down with, under the pressure of … that change when they … found themselves locked within the confines of society and peace. Just like the things water animals must have gone through when they were forced … to become land animals or to die off, … suddenly all its instincts were devalued and “disengaged.” A terrible heaviness weighed them down. … These unfortunate creatures were reduced to thinking, … reduced to their “consciousness,” their most impoverished and error-prone organ! … on earth there has never been such a feeling of misery, … while at the same time those old instincts had not … stopped imposing their demands!they had to find new … satisfactions … All instincts which are not discharged to the outside are turned back inside. This is what I call the internalization of man. … The entire inner world, … acquired depth, fortifications with which … the state protected itself against the old instincts … made all those instincts … turn backwards, against man himself. Enmity, cruelty, joy in pursuit, in attack, in change, in destruction—all those turned themselves against the possessors of such instincts. That is the origin of “bad conscience.” The man who lacked external … opposition … impatiently tore himself apart, … this impoverished creature, … was the inventor of “bad conscience.” With him was introduced the greatest and weirdest illness, from which human beings … have not recovered, … a consequence of the forcible separation from his animal past, … there was now an animal soul turned against itself, … it required divine spectators to approve the dramatic performance which then began and whose conclusion is not yet in sight, … In himself he arouses a certain interest, … as if the human being were not the goal but only the way, an episode, a great promise . . .”

And, moralism makes solvency impossible---it symptomizes despair over effecting change at significant levels, ensuring the sources of violence remain unarticulated and unaddressed. Brown 2:

Wendy Brown, Political Theory @ UC Berkeley, 2k1

(Politics Out of History. P 35-36

  • moralistic repreoachesRather than offering … substantive accounts of the forces of injustice … they condemn the manifestation of these forces in particular remarks or events. There is, … a politicsthatsymptomizes despair over effecting change at more significant levels. As vast quantities ofattention go to determining what socially marked individuals say, … the sources that generate violence and other elements of social injustice remain unarticulated and unaddressed. We are lost as how to address those sources; but rather than examine this loss … rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture as if we were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over words and names. Don't mourn, moralize.

Thus the alternative text: Vote negative.

Instead of tying your ballot to the affirmative’s convictions, use it to prod the latent assumptions of their value system. Critiquing their morality is necessary to craft a new orientation towards life that does not collapse into punitive violence. Brown 3:

Wendy Brown, Political Theory @ UC Berkeley, 2k1

(Politics Out of History. p 95-98

  • the insistence on the importance of transcendent ideals … paradoxically affirms rather than challenges a figuring of the political domain as relentlessly amoral. It places the idealist actor at a distance … thus inevitably disappointed by it and … even prepared to renounce politics because of its failures and compromises … genealogy formulated by Nietzschemight function as … a ground that, … embraces the contingent elements of political life and also faces … the relative arbitrariness of values. … genealogical knowledge asreleased from conviction. … As Nietzsche describes this questioning, he also describes its productivity: "Out of my answers there grew new questions, … until at length I had a country of my own, … an entire discrete, thriving, flourishing world, … This secret garden is what genealogy intends to produce: this other way of conceiving the familiar, this radical displacement of the lay of the land through which we think and perceive ourselves, … Genealogy promises a worldview that is differently populated and oriented than the one in which we are steeped. "The project is to traverse with quite novel questions, … the enormous, distant, and so well hidden land of morality … to discover this land for the first time" This problem of morality . seems … to be … something detached, an isolated question mark; but whoever … learns how to ask questions here will experience what I experienced—a tremendous new prospect opens up for him, … a new demand becomes audible. … genealogy is a form of artful questioning, a way of asking "what really happened there" … we need a critique of moral values, the value of these values themselves must first be called in question—and for that there is needed a knowledge of the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, … questioning produces an experience of vertigo, and the vertigo gives way to a demand. The demand is not of a conventional … sort but rather seeks new knowledge …”
And, this K is super effective because literally every single ethical theory he read as a justification is a link into the K. This means that the K is responsive to all of his different theories. But let's go to his side of the flow to be thurough.

Group all of his arguments together.

First: there's literally no warrants provided by any of his arguments as to why they actually affirm. He just states the reasons it could but doesn't provide any warrants as to why it does.

Second: All of his arguments are concerned with how the actions of providing food will create good benefits, so all I have to do to disprove his theories is show that affirming doesn't work or makes things worse. So...

Food aid goes to the wrong people. We're feeding terrorists in Somalia with our assistance. Franks:

Franks, Suzanne. "Public Perception And Policy: Famine And Food Secuirtization In The Horn Of Africa." Chatham House. December 06, 2009. Web. February 03, 2015.
  • "the World Food Programme was left with little decision but to withdraw from Somalia in 2011. Much of its food aid was being lost to al Shabaab. This left a lot more people vulnerable to famine but there are very significant risks regarding where food aid will ultimately end up."

More to come next round.
That1User

Pro

""I seek God! " "Whither is God?" " "I will tell you. We have killed him " How shall we comfort ourselves " What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? " Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto." " "I have come too early," " "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. " deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."

Nietzsche is stating here that the concept of the Christian God, the concept of ultimate reality, is dead. As a result of this, the question is what will be the moral foundation of humans? I am proposing that the moral foundation for humans is helping other humans, in this case by providing food security.

"the loss of " epistemological ground for " morality " does not quash the moral impulse itself. " what form does this impulse take when it has lost its lodging in an abstract principle and vision of the good .. . " ? It is when the telos of the good vanishes but the yearning for it remains that morality appears to devolve into moralism " at this point that one finds moralizers standing against much but for very little, adopting a voice of moral judgment in the absence of a full-fledged moral " vision. " the moralizer refuses the loss of the teleological and becomes reactionary: clinging without logical ground to the last comforting frame in the unraveling narrative " Despite its righteous insistence on knowing what is True, Valuable, or Important, moralism " marks both analytic impotence and " aimlessness " the moralizing injunction to act, " might be read as a symptom of " paralysis in the face of radical " disorientation and as a " hysterical mask for the despair that attends such paralysis. " a life force flattened into a passive or paralyzed stance toward the world turns against life as it turns against itself; " it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis "" -Brown

How is having the system of morality of helping other's cause a "hysterical mask for the despair?" or "a moralizing vengeance serving only as a hysterial mask for the vertigo of God"s vacuum"? There are many health benefits of helping others, and thus both the reciever and the giver of help recieve happiness. ( https://www.psychologytoday.com...) (http://www.helpguide.org...)

"I consider bad conscience the profound illness which human beings had to come down with, under the pressure of " that change when they " found themselves locked within the confines of society and peace. Just like the things water animals must have gone through when they were forced " to become land animals or to die off, " suddenly all its instincts were devalued and "disengaged." " A terrible heaviness weighed them down. " These unfortunate creatures were reduced to thinking, " reduced to their "consciousness," their most impoverished and error-prone organ! " on earth there has never been such a feeling of misery, " while at the same time those old instincts had not " stopped imposing their demands! " they had to find new " satisfactions " All instincts which are not discharged to the outside are turned back inside. This is what I call the internalization of man. " The entire inner world, " acquired depth, " fortifications with which " the state protected itself against the old instincts " made all those instincts " turn backwards, against man himself. Enmity, cruelty, joy in pursuit, in attack, in change, in destruction""all those turned themselves against the possessors of such instincts. That is the origin of "bad conscience." The man who lacked external " opposition " impatiently tore himself apart, " this impoverished creature, " was the inventor of "bad conscience." With him was introduced the greatest and weirdest illness, from which human beings " have not recovered, " a consequence of the forcible separation from his animal past, " there was now an animal soul turned against itself, " it required divine spectators to approve the dramatic performance which then began and whose conclusion is not yet in sight, " In himself he arouses a certain interest, " as if the human being were not the goal but only the way, an episode, a great promise . . ." -Nietzche

The negative uses this quote to support that my moralizing results in an inner-war against the self that outweights all violence. Violence is defined as "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." This includes child abuse, murder, rape, genocide, etc. Certaintly a so called "inner-war" against oneself as a result of my moralizing cannot be worse than all violence. For stating that strong statement, it would be reasonable for the negative to fufill the BoP of the statement that the affirmatives moralizing results in an inner-war against the self that outweights all violence.

"moralistic repreoaches " Rather than offering " substantive accounts of the forces of injustice " they condemn the manifestation of these forces in particular remarks or events. There is, " a politics " that " symptomizes despair over effecting change at more significant levels. As vast quantities of " attention go to determining what socially marked individuals say, " the sources that generate " violence " and other elements of social injustice remain " unarticulated and unaddressed. We are lost as how to address those sources; but rather than examine this loss " rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture as if we were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over words and names. Don't mourn, moralize." -Brown

The entire purpose of the moral axoms provided is to counter these things with peace and love through helping others.

The WFP is effective according to this: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

Pro's responses to the K miss the point entirely and only beg the same questions that the K criticizes.

Start on Nietzche 1. Extend it out. God is dead at the hands of humanity. Our attempts to bring Him back to life via appealing to moral standards re-kills Him over and over again. Without God's life, there lacks an authoritative norm behind moral standards to give them reasons to believe them. Without God having the final moral say in what is actually good and what is actually bad, we wouldn't know which of Pro's standards was actually the correct standard to live by.

His only response to this is that he's proposing other theories of helping people to be the moral foundation to base our beliefs on. But all this does it literally concedes the link to the K coming out of Brown 1. These theories that he's proposing are exactly the moralism that's destroying society and is the exact opposite of morality. With this response, not that he was really contesting the link to begin with, there's absolutely no way for him to avoid the harms of the K. Hold him to the link.

Then go to Brown 1. Extend it out. The attempt to bring up other theories to base our moral impulses off of in the wake of the death of God creates a moralism that's without morality. Our desire for "good" is still there, yet the telos for the good has disapeered creates the exact opposite of morality.

His only response is to question the warrant coming out of Brown, but the warrants are clear. Without the telos of the good, our yearnings for moral good are without basis and lack definitive meaning. We keep insisting that we know what's good and important and true and we cling to our other standards as warrant for why what we're doing is the right thing, but we lack reason for doing so and an explanation for why we keep doing so much for so little. We're paralyzed in our inability to know what to do with the absense of God, and so we lash out in a primal sense and moralism is the mask to hide our weakness. The "health benefits" he talks about and how it provides happiness are a perfect example of this. Without God we have no explanation for our feelings and desires, so we just irrationally throw ourselves out there and say that we should be helping other people without an ultimate reason for why we ought to be doing this: we just feel like we should be doing this and we feel better when we do it.

Then go to Nietzsche 2. Extend it out. Without God providing us our reasoning for doing things and giving us a source for the demands imposed on us, all of our impulses and desires are without a source and without a reason and become disvalued and disenfranchised. Nietzsche compares it to the evolution of water animals when they were forced to either adapt to land or die off. Our old impulses and desires still impose their demands on us, but we have to find new ways of fulfilling them. We pick something, anything, to work against, to demonize as the enemy and as something to be abolished and destroyed without any hesitation. And once it's defeated and eliminated, we have to find something else to strive against as quickly as possible. Without something to fight against, we tear ourselves apart in the downtime. Moralism is a constant physical and ethical struggle against ourselves and the outside world which encompases literally every individual on the face of the earth, which is going to out-weigh all other impacts.

Pro's only response to this is to question the warrant, but the warrants are clear and I literally just explained them. Nietzsche literally walks you through the warrants almost in a step-by-step basis, so it's on him if he can't understand the warrant.

Then go to Brown 2. Extend it out. Rather than address the root cause of our problems, to find ways to address the problems that we're facing and admit to our weakness and impotence, we prefer to ignore the problem and instead shift the attention away from our weakness and onto something else to fight. We'd much rather think that, despite our human flaws, we're still fighting the moral fight, still "fighting the good fight" than admit that we have no reason for believing what we believe. Within moralism, there isn't actually a way to solve for it. A society of moralism won't ever address the problem of moralism, instead preferring to just moralize harder and shift the attention away from the problem.

Pro's response is the perfect example of Brown 2. Instead of addressing the problem and addressing the faults of moralism, he just shifts the attention away from it by insisting that we still have ways to do good. We still have all these other moral axioms to address problems! We can still fight the good fight! His response only solidifes the warrants in Brown 2.

Then go to Brown 3. Extend it out, because this is the most crucial piece and why you're ultimately negating at the end of the day. The way out of moralism is by negating. Instead of tying your vote to whichever belief system the affirmative decides to espouse at the end of the day, use it to criticize and poke holes in the assumptions of his ethics. This is the only way we can craft a new orientiation towards life that doesn't collapse into moralism. We need to critique moralism, not re-use it, and the only way to critique moralism is by negating.

This is the game-over mistake for Pro because he 100% drops this argument. There's no response made by him to address this at all in his last speech. And this is critical to the K since the alternative is the most important part of the K and he didn't put a single response onto it. Don't let him make a response to it in his last round since I won't have a chance to respond to it, plus he had the opportunity to address it and didn't.


This means that you can't look to any of the five theories he provides in his case as a reason to affirm. They're all links to moralism, and I'm winning 100% of the K debate, so that takes out 100% of his arguments in favor of the resolution. And since he doesn't respond to the alternative, I'm extending our clear offense and reasons to negate the resolution. Case closed, stick a fork in it, you probably don't even need to read the last speech. Again, don't let him make a response to the alternative in the last round since he 100% dropped it.

But let's go back to the substance (the little bit of substance that there is).

First, he doesn't respond to my argument that his theories don't actually have warrants to them as to why they actually affirm the resolution. All of his arguments talk about ways that they could affirm the resolution, but he doesn't actually prove any of them or provide any kind of warrants for why they actually do affirm the resolution. Without this there's no reason to buy into any of the arguments he provides.

Second, he provides some link for why the WFP is effective, but this literally bites into the argument I advance in Franks which talks about how his specific system sucks d*ck. Our attempts to give food to other people, specifically the WFP, only just gives the food over to terrorist organizations (al Shabaab), which does the exact opposite of what it's aiming to do.

You can also extend out Franks as a turn to his case on a contentional level. We're not actually helping people and fulfilling any of the frameworks he proposes if the food we're trying to give to starving people is just ending up in the hands of terrorists because not only are the people we're trying to help not actually receiving the help, meaning they're still starving and all of those negatives still occuring, but we're literally just feeding terrorists who are going to go on to try and kill us later on down the road, which is even more negatives.


This makes the debate really clear and the easiest negative vote of your lives:

1. I'm clearly extending out and winning 100% of the K. The K is a) a sufficient response to his arguments, since all of the different ethical theories he posits as reasons to affirm the resolution are links into the K, and b) a reason to negate the resolution, since he drops the alternative to moralism.

2. I'm showing you how his arguments don't actually affirm the resolution, since he lacks the warrants to show why under his different theories that providing food security actually affirms the resolution.

3. I'm showing you that attempting to provide food security for people actually doesn't work and the food we send just ends up in the hands of terrorists, meaning that we don't actually end up providing security for anyone.
That1User

Pro

I concede, Zaradi has put forth great arguments for his case and I look foward to debating him in the future, next time with better arguments on my part.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Even when God was giving the Jews free food, many of them still got greedy and kept extra manna, which made God mad and a few times he had to punish them for their lack of faith.

Leave it to a Jew to go overboard on free stuff
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
He provided the Jews with food security when they were outside the promise land by providing manna from heaven.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
Send me the challenge if you want to find out ;)
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
WHAT does God have to do with food security?
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
How could I? You completely wrecked me.
I have better arguments now so we can debate this again in the future.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
WillYouMarryMe
I wish I could replace Pro -.-
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
.....

NO! NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! D:< Debate like a man!
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Awesome!!
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
WillYouMarryMe
I would like to accept this debate.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
Sorry for the crappy conclusion, my computer derped up and I had to submit it as is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
ZaradiThat1UserTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
ZaradiThat1UserTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Gracious concession by PRO, so by convention, conduct to him and arguments to CON.