Given that the right to life should be universal, that it is the proper role of government to protect all the universal rights of its citizens, and as the human body requires certain minimum requirements to live (i.e. Food, Water, Air, etc.) the point stands that a government which we term to be "just" ought to do everything within its power to provide these basic needs. As these basic needs are essential, and an entity such as a government has the great capacity to supply those needs, a just government truly ought to provide food security to all its citizens. Thank you.
The government is not in charge of making sure you have food at anytime. It's your fault if you can't afford food. I f you need money then get a job! you most likely didn't finish high school if you cant afford it which is your fault. If you did get an education then you most likely know that you can afford and have food at all times including making a food storage.
You seem to believe that all people are capable of completing high school, even those who do not have food to begin with. Do you then believe that a family which is starving below the poverty line is going to invest in an education or in the next meal?
In addition, I would restate my argument. Is it, in fact, the duty of a government to provide it's citizens with food security? As my opponent has not addressed any of my principles founding my argument, I maintain my full position that a just government must provide things essential to living as a part of protecting their unalienable rights.
Seeing as my opponent has not been able to rebuttal any of my arguments, I will assert that mine are superior and would claim the votes of the judges. That being said, I would like to continue this debate, and will allow my opponent to post any rebuttals they may have in this round instead. If they fail to do so, I will assume my points have been proven and will cease to debate. Thank you.