The Instigator
Jhous
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 960 times Debate No: 70276
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Jhous

Pro

Round One: Acceptance
Round Two: Argument
Round Three: Rebuttal
Round Four: Conclusion

Definitions:

Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good

Government: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe; to guarantee

Security: the quality or state of being secure

Good Luck, I look forward to a strong debate.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

I accept with the understanding that the BoP is on Pro
Debate Round No. 1
Jhous

Pro

As the topic is a resolution, and I am taking the affirmative, I fully agree that I should take the Burden of Proof.
That being said, let us begin.


Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens.

We shall begin with the most fundamental role of government. The protection of mankind's universal rights. This is the most basic, moral, and "just" function of government. This is the basic principle upon which Thomas Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence. The most basic role of government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Like Thomas Jefferson, I will build my argument upon this principle.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights details 30 rights which ought to be ensured to all people. Two of these rights are the right to life and the right to social security. Youth For Human Rights defines these two rights as:
  • Life: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.
  • Social Security: We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.
Based on these two definitions, I feel it is reasonable to assume that every person has a right to their life and for the necessities for life.

If the base function of a just government is to protect the universal rights of its citizens, and each person has a right to life and the things necessary to sustain life, then it is only reasonable to say that a just government ought to ensure food security to its citizens. I find it to be a truly moral and just resolution.

I hope my few words have rung true. With hope of a dignified response, I solicit the votes of the judges.

Thank you.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

I thank my opponent for his humble words and now proceed to advocate my own.



Is a government's role to be moral at all?

Is it even the job of the government to be moral? No, a goverment exists solely to protect its people, doing so using 3 things:


1.) its police force: to protect its citizens from criminals

2.) its Army: to protect from foreign invaders

3.) its court systems: to protect property and other violations

History has taught us that it is not the role of the government to act as a moral power, kn fact government usually fails when it tries to accomplish anything of the sort. The fact is that governments are not capable of being moral. Though a government may take an action which has the qualities of being moral it is simply impossible for a government itself to be moral at all. For instance all though SIRI, the voice on our iPhones may talk and even respond as though 'she' is concious, it is simply impossible for it to be so. The job of morality rests in the hands of the people in a society not in the government to force the people into being or acting moral, as the resolution entails.

Folks, we must not confuse Fundemental rights with social rights. It is only the social rights which the government must uphold. And so I must declare that it is not the job or the right of the government to uphold morality and quite frankly it is impossible, allowing the government this power violates its 1 function which is simply to protect its people and thus this resolution undermine the entire premise of government, a concept which the founders would also agree.


Resolution is the Foundation for Totalitarianism

Let's move beyond the fact that governments truely can't and shouldnt hold moral power and look to just 1 result of this resolution. If all governments required that all people must have adiquate food then we must examine the inescapable reality of nations lacking enough food for everyone. What happens when resouces become scarce? Well the government must then require that the farmers switch their Cash Crops to something that can feed more people more economically. In essence it takes power of land away from the farmers. This undermines their social rights to property and the pursuit of happiness as well as their individual rights.

Now, what happens when the government has the power to seize your property and to inhibit your ultimate freedoms? We arrive an the communist state in places like Soviet Russia, China, North Korea and even fascist systems like the ones found in the Nazi regime. The truth is that we cannot sacrifice social rights for fundemental rights because in that case we arive in a government where no one has power because they are under the rule of a 'moral' government who has the power to seize your rights at any time. Instead governments should offer a system that makes getting food an Option when one works for it, one that gives them the Means to acheive their fundemental rights such as the ones found predominately in the western world. not only does this reward those who work the hardest but it preserves both fundemental and social rights most effectively. Thank you for your time and I look forward to the rebuttals. I pass the gauntlet back to the pro team.


-The JVN

Debate Round No. 2
Jhous

Pro

Firstly, my opponent began his argument with a question which I deem to be totally irrelevant. The resolution at debate assumes that there is such thing as a "just government" and that is taken as a given before debate even commences. Were the debate rather on the proper role of government, we could debate that fundamental principle. But as strong academic debate is impossible if certain things can not be assumed as true for the sake of an argument, I feel that all arguments made under that umbrella heading of "Is a government's role to be moral at all?" ought to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present debate.

As to the point in which my opponent states, "that it is not the job or the right of the government to uphold morality and quite frankly it is impossible, allowing the government this power violates its 1 function which is simply to protect its people and thus this resolution undermine the entire premise of government, a concept which the founders would also agree." I would like to provide a statement from John Adams, the father of the Constitution, which totally defeats the argument:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine
which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree,
that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral
philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man.
From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates
ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the
greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."
(John Adams, Thoughts on Government, emphasis added)

Indeed, the very father of the Constitution does not agree with my opponent. The statement claiming that the founders agree with him, is totally false.


The final point which my opponent makes seems more well founded on the surface, but below the skin there is a much more illogical argument.

My opponent seems to believe that one possible result of such a policy is enough to discount the immediate benefits thereof. If I am understanding correctly, my opponent seems to believe that the millions of people who are impoverished should starve to death, that a government should not protect the lives of the people they have the responsibility to protect, and that a chance reality based on no solid evidence. Indeed, I believe that it is foolish to throw away the lives of so many people simply out of fear of a chance future.

As none of the arguments my opponent made have any substantial ground, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you for your time well spent.

TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con



I.) Just governments can't exist

Pro's Argument
1.) The resolution makes an assumption that just governments can exist
2.) I (Con) accepted the resolution with this knowledge
3.) Thus I (con) have agreed and accepted that just governments do exist
4.) Meaning, My(con) first argument is invalid


Rebutal

1.) Agreed
2.) Agreed
3.) Disagree
4.) Disagree


Argument: My acceptance of the round does not mean that I have accepted underlying assumptions in the resolution.

Proof

a.) The purpose of any debate is education, by limiting the arguments that can be made, pro would be destroying the purpose of the debate. This is why acceptance of assumptions is not a rule in Any form of debate.

b.) by arguing this, Pro could/can shift the goal post by fabricating numerous unstated assumptions which I have accepted, I not be able to contend against these fabricated assumptions and fairness would be lostin the round.

c.) As an experienced JV member of both school policy debate and forensics debate, I can contest that I have never seen any debate where unspoken assumptions are assumed to be true just because of acceptance. For example, policy debate has the Kritic argument, which is crafted to challenge a fundemental assumtion in any given resolution.

d.) Thus, please maintain my first point concerning whether just governments exist or should exist.




II.) Pro can no longer refute my first argument, if he cant refute it must be true, and I thus maintain that he must lose the round

1.) in order to invalidate a claim, you must make counter claims against it
2.) Pro has not made counter claims against my first argument, he has instead made argumentation against the basis of making those claims in the first place
3.) I have proven his argumentation against my basis is wrong
4.) Thus my argument still stands
5.) pro has stipulated that the last round is conclusion so No new arguments can be made in conclusion rounds
6.) thus because my argument still stands, and because pro can't refute it anymore the argument must be considered correct
7.) If the argument is true then then the resolution cant be affirmed because it is impossible for it to be true in the first place
8.) if the resolution is not affirmed, pro must lose the round automatically




III.) The Founding Father's debate

Argument: My opponent has claimed that the quote below proves the founding fathers support his beleifs however he has misinterprited the quotation.

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine
which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree,
that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral
philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man.
From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates
ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the
greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."

a.) John Adams simply says the government which makes the most people happy is the correct government. Happiness is not equivalant to morality. Example: If there were a land of Ted Bundies governed by a Ted Bundy government, then murder would be what would make the most people happy, however murder is immoral and thus his form of government is only concerned with happiness and not what is morally right or wrong


b.) Pro has failed to show that every single founding father agrees with the principles he promotes, even if he did it doesnt prove his case right or wrong, it simply proves that someone else agrees with him.



IV.) Social Rights v. Fundemental Rights

Pro claims that I am basing my arguments off of a hypothetical situation

I disagree, I state that this is the only possible route of a government of this sort as we can see in places such as Soviet Russia and China. The government comes and starts taking your social rights which leads to corruption and totalitarianism.


Conclusion: I-II, pro has made an invalid argument on the basis of my crafting of argument 1 while simultaneously he has not actually made arguments against My Actual argument meaning that because the conlcusion round prevents new arguments, he has conceeded that argument and must lose the debate. This is becase in debate 'silence is compliance' and he has no other option but silence. III, Pro has simply mistaken the word happiness with morality, they are two different things and thus his quote doesnt support his position. He has also failed to show that every single founding father agrees with him, even if he did it doesnt prove his case. IV, finally I quickly show that my argument was indeed not a hypothetical situation but an inevitable end to all forms of government like this. Theeen I did my conclusion lol


Thank you for the debate and I hope my new style of debating was easy to read. I look forward to the summary round and I now pass the pen back to pro.

-The JVN
Debate Round No. 3
Jhous

Pro

Jhous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
its ok man, same thing just happened to me this past few days resulting in a forfeit...
Posted by Jhous 1 year ago
Jhous
In all frankness, work caught up with me and I had no time to write another argument. I am by no means trying to sway a vote or anything, simply apologizing to my opponent for my lack of response.
No votes have been placed for this debate.