The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 71988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




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

This debate is intended to be a Lincoln-Douglas (LD) styled debate. All styles of LD cases are acceptable. Please refrain from accepting this debate if you are not familiar with LD debate and are not familiar with the styles in which it is debated.

The Round Structure will go like this:

Round One: Pro accepts and states case. I repeat, you will start off in the very first round. The first round is not for acceptance.

Round Two: Con case + rebuttals, Pro rebuttals

Round Three: Con rebuttals, Pro rebuttals.

No new arguments may be presented in the final round.


Imagine a world without the government. What if the government seized to exist? What if every human was allowed their human rights? Allowed to make their own choices of their whole entire life. If every human was given their human right to decide on what is just, what is important, what the right punishment for every crime is, where the borders lie for their own land; well, I"m sure every person on earth would agree that it would be utter chaos. So, when civilization began to group together in small nomadic tribes, we began to see the rise of order by means of an elder woman who would have the reigns on the tribe. After the tribes of people settled into cities and towns and buildings began to be built then came the times of the Kings, Queens, and Popes.

The end of that time started the new idea of government. Where people could move up the economic scale and officials were put into place for the good and safety of the people. Since we give up our rights it is more than vital that we also gain something. We should expect our basic needs. If the government can supply us with water, heat, electricity, and now internet services why can they not provide us with food as well? Any just government should be able to provide food security for their people.

Some people may think that the food industry is a major part of our economy so how will we flourish as an economy if food safety is taken into consideration.If you take a look at the economy a good chunk does come from the food industry. In 2008 the frozen food industry made $100 Billion and the food industry made a $126 Billion revenue ( That is a good heap of money for the economy but if you look at the amount we waste and compare it to the revenue. We lose more than we gain. 4 millions tonnes of food are wasted annually around the world. 37% of food is wasted during production. The expiration dates are just a protection from lawsuits, the food is good well past their expiration date. Pests take 25% of our crops. ( And to prevent that we come up with the GMO seeds to increase production and provide protection from the pests. But that hasn"t really done much. GMO"s wind up causing major tumors. So the idea of harm to the global economy wouldn"t be a problem if we use our food wisely and its production is wise.

The government has an obligation to provide food security for its people because the government wouldn"t have people to govern if it didn"t have healthy and fed people. This is a vital aspect of this whole argument. If the government wants people to drop like flies then it shouldn"t matter if there is food or not. If they want a fully populated governed country then the need for people is high. It is a basic need of life. We have needs and those needs need to be met in order for people to function enough to further themselves and become more efficient in society. There are many laws that are placed throughout the world to help the hungry from dying of hunger. There are many people who fight everyday of their life for a right that should automatically be available to all the people of this globe. The biggest thing though is that if there is such an abundance of food then there should be no person who is starving.

Food security is defined as food availability, food access, and food utilization (USAID 1995) This means that there is enough food for people who cannot afford it and that there is a fair price on foods that have been sold after giving to the people who cannot afford them. If their are high priced farms that they be sold at low prices or they be given to the less fortunate. This is the way that the world should work, every person helping another. Especially the government. 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.

Food is a basic necessity of life. People need food in order to properly function. A person who is starving will be willing to commit any crime for them to replenish that need. 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.

Healthy and hunger Free Kids is the number one law that came to be in America back in 2010. It states that if any family is unable to provide their child with food the school will give them a healthy meal. That would include a breakfast meal and a lunch meal. For a more global evaluation, India has a number of NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) that were created to provide men, women, and children who have no food with free and healthy, fresh food. In Africa there are a number of schools that have decided to provide under privileged children with food at school. There also is an organization that funds the African people with a specific seed called the Hydroseed. This is a type of seed that is modified so it can survive and flourish with little to no water. That has increased crop revenue and been able to provide an ample amount of food to the farmers and their neighbors who use this seed. There also are a number of soup kitchens and organizations that try and provide food to the needy. But if the government took this under their wing and provided food for their people, there would be a larger abundance of people and there would be less disease epidemics because everybody would be getting the same food so we would be able to quickly find what is wrong with what food.

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 and every food has an expiration date. People are misguided into thinking that once that expiration date has passed that the food is toxic then. That isn"t the case. Many times the food is perfectly fine and healthy to be consumed just it isn"t because if somebody were to get sick the expiration date would be a legal case to protect the dairy farmer from being sued. Everyday fresh loaves of bread, vegetables, fruits, beans, rice, etc. are thrown away because they don"t look good enough to sell. They aren"t thinking of the people who have no food and would gladly eat this food with no problem. I have personally worked at a fast food restaurant and the amount of wastage is just incredible. Listen to this. The place I worked at was a deep fried chicken place called Pens-a-tucky Fried Chicken (PFC) every hour you had to throw away the hour old chicken and put in a fresh batch. A perfectly fine tray of at least 50 pieces of chicken tossed because it had "expired". That wasn"t even the worst part. They did this with every dish on the menu. Every night we would stay after hours and peel the meat off the bones of only specific types of meats, and if one worker felt lazy the whole tray would get tossed. The floors were caked with oil and so were the walls. I never had pimples but the huge amount of grease took a toll on my clear skin. PFC made a rule that workers couldn"t take home left over food which is beyond stupid because somebody is willing to eat your food before it goes to waste.

Every human on earth deserves good, healthy food. If we are given air to breathe, water to drink, electricity to survive, then why is food left out? Nobody can live their whole life without food and it is an obligation of the government to provide its people with the necessary nourishment to sustain life. This will only be possible though if you force the government to accommodate every life. When all people join together to make all people realize that we are in this together and so helping one another out is the only way we are going to survive in this big mean world. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 1


Contention One: Providing food doesn’t work

a) Attempts to provide people with food in an attempt to establish food security just gives food to the wrong people. No one who actually needs food ends up getting any food. Fong ‘12:

Fong, Phyllis K. “Statement Of The Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Before The Committee On Oversight And Government Reform, U.S. House OF Representatives.” United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. August 03, 2012. Web. February 05, 2015. <;

  • “recipients … misrepresent themselves to receive benefits. … a series of audits of 10 States to assess … potentially fraudulent recipients … revealed that a total of 8,594 recipients were receiving potential improper payments. Some … were using the social security numbers of deceased individuals … these recipients could be receiving about $1.1 million a month.”

b) Attempts to provide food aid to people just gets hijacked by terrorists and insurgents. Affirming only helps the people who are out to kill us. Somalia proves. Franks ‘09:

Franks, Suzanne. “Public Perception And Policy: Famine And Food Securitization In The Horn Of Africa.” Chatham House. December 06, 2009. Web. February 03, 2015. <;

  • “the [WFP] 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.”

c) Trying to provide food to people via food stamps has actually NEGATIVELY impacted food security overall. Wilde ‘03:

Wilde, Parke. “The Effect Of Food Stamps On Food Security: A Panel Data Approach.” Review of Agricultural Economics. January 01, 2003. Web. February 09, 2015. <>

  • “The … (USDA) estimated that 11.1% of American households were food insecure in 2002 … Among low-income food stamp participants, the rate of food insecurity was 51.4%. Among low-income nonparticipants, the rate was 28.7% … a few studies have sought to measure the FSP’s effect on food insufficiency or food insecurity … Food stamps were negatively associated with food sufficiency in least squares regression models, but there was no association in models that sought to correct for selection bias.”

Contention Two: We’re too corrupt for this to be at all beneficial

a) Attempts to use food welfare in the US is actively abused. People use food stamps to buy drugs and illegal weapons. Affirming doesn’t actually help anyone. Fong 2:

  • “OIG has … found fraud and … in many types of trafficking in SNAP benefits. By giving a recipient $50 in cash for $100 in benefits … recipients .. are then able to spend the cash however they like. Recipients have exchanged benefits for drugs, weapons, and other contraband. When trafficking occurs unchecked, families do not receive the intended nutritional assistance, and unscrupulous retailers profit at the expense of the American public.”

b) The USDA knows about the corruption and won’t do anything about it. We’re intentionally screwing over civilians in the affirmative world. Fong 3:

  • “we found that FNS does not verify SNAP retailers’ criminal records and therefore cannot comply with its own requirement to deny SNAP to any retailer with a criminal history … FNS concluded that our recommendation would need a regulatory change and may not be cost beneficial … we determined that FNS did not debar any of the 615 wholesalers and retailers convicted … even though a conviction is adequate grounds for debarment. … it is not FNS’ policy to do so. …”

c) And even when we do take action, the offending parties have plenty of ways around the restrictions and can continue to defraud the USFG. There’s no way for the aff to solve for the harms of corruption. Fong 4:

  • “When FNS determines that a retailer is abusing the program, the agency places it on the disqualified vendor list … some disqualified retailers have found ways around this particular control. … a disqualified retailer can enlist … a “straw owner,” … By reapplying to the program using the name of this “straw owner,” the disqualified retailer sets up the business again and continues criminal activities … in … Connecticut … a store owner was deported after being convicted of food stamp trafficking fraud … years later, … he illegally reentered the US and opened several stores using other individuals’ names. … to accept SNAP benefits … and … defraud the Government … $2 million … a group … in Florida … executed this scheme … three times … trafficked approximately $6.2 million …”

Contention Three: Benefits to negating

a) Food insecurity actually prevents insurgent violence. Hendrix ‘13 provides 3 warrants:

Hendrix, Cullen. “Food Insecurity And Conflict Dynamics: Causal Linkages And Complex Feedbacks.” INternational Journal of Stability of Security and Development. January 27, 2013. Web. February 03, 2015. <;

  • “First, acute insecurity … diminishes the resources available to militants. Military thinkers ranging from Sun Tzu to Napoleon have recognized that the ability to forage is a binding constraint on militaries - especially those, such as rebel organizations, that lack sophisticated logistics and support networks. Rebel movements typically do not grow their own food and depend on voluntary or coerced contributions from the population. … Second, food insecurity can hinder active political participation - including participation in civil conflict - at the individual level. People experiencing acute food insecurity invest virtually all their effort in the pursuit of food, leaving little time and energy for the pursuit of … ideological ends … civil conflict is relatively more prevalent under conditions of relative food abundance and better agro-climatic conditions … Finally, the fact that food denial is often incorporated into counterinsurgency operations suggests that acute and severe food insecurity should suppress insurgent violence …”

Onto the pro case.

While her case looks really long and detailed, literally the entirety of her case revolves around a single idea: give people food because they need food to live. So let's talk about that idea.

First, cross apply my contention one about how attempts to provide people with food don't work and end up in the hands of the wrong people or in the hands of really bad people. This means that she never fulfills the intention of her case which is to save lives.

Second, cross apply my second contention which talks about how corrupt our government is and how little we're willing to do to actually solve the problem, and how even if we tried to solve it there will still be more loopholes to be abused. This means that her plan to give people food to save more lives won't actually work because our government is too corrupt to actually make it work, meaning we'll never actually see her impacts.

Third, my third contention outweighs. Harming insurgent efforts to commit acts of terror outweigh attempts to feed people because it affects more than just our nations. Terrorism is a global impacts and the hunger problems of a nation don't affect a different nation.

Fourth, her argument about how we waste so much food to make the profits not worth it makes no sense and has no warrant to it at all. Even if we're wasting that many tons of food, the fact that we have that much pure profit coming from the food industry means that economically it's totally worth it.

Fifth, while in theory food security sounds really nice for the poor, it only helps the rich at the expense of those who depend on agricultural sales for a living. This means that her attempts to help the hungry don't actually help the hungry, but rather hurts the people producing our food, which only compounds the problems. Hendrix 2:
  • "Urban bias - the tendency for governments in developing countries to be more responsive to the policy concerns and preferences of urbanites at the expense of rural dwellers - is well documented ... In all political systems, rulers risk removal from office by force or massive popular upheaval if serious urban grievances are not addressed ... Regardless of regime type, rulers face general incentives to invest in policies that disproportionately favor those segments of scoiety that pose the most threat and whose support is most necessary for regime survival: urban dwellers, the military and the upper and middle classes ... or these reasons, rulers have general incentives to subsidize urban food consumption at the expense of rural producers, and target interventions during food price spikes toward comparatively better-off segments of society. These interventions - such as general consumer subsidies, price controls, and export bans - harm rural incomes while doing little to target aid to those who are most food insecure."

As such, I negate.



meheshhk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend my arguments.



meheshhk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
@Zaradi - I will debate you on this if you want. Live or not.
Posted by meheshhk 3 years ago
LD debates typically are based on morals. LD stands for Lincoln-Douglass debate which was the debate done to win an election. The debate was done on the topic of slavery so obviously a lot more moral issues were pointed out in a topic like that. Also when doing this type of debate you don't focus on just your country or one geographical area, you look at it globally.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
LD cases don't always have a ton of quotes.

LD cases are defined by their structure, with a Value and a Criterion supported by contentions.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 3 years ago
can someone just please explicitly state once and for all what the difference between an LD case and a "normal" case is?
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 3 years ago
just a question... do LD cases by definition have to include enormous quotations in them?
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
I would debate this with you live. I can accept the debate now though, because I don't want to post prior to NFL districts. CFL states is over, but districts is still left to go.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
I'd love to see them come and try.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
A master of semantics is going to come in and beat you if you don't define "just".
Posted by ColeTrain 3 years ago
I would accept this debate, but I'm already doing a debate over this very subject. Further, the last time I debated you, you were vulgar, and we received no votes on our debate. Lol. Best of luck, Zaradi.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.