Should the military cafeterias give their uneaten food to the homeless shelters or throw it away?
Debate Rounds (3)
With respectful response to my opponent: I simply cannot see how this can benefit the homeless or the poor. Taking food from a plate that has been eaten from and then delivering it to homeless shelters would be an unhygienic and costly matter. One simply does not transport food all the way from Afghanistan or Iraq to the U.S.A and then proceed to distribute it throughout the nation without spending a large chunk of One's budget. With all the money spent flying a plane through hostile airspace, over the Atlantic Ocean and then through the distribution of this unhygienic waste you may as well buy new food for the unfortunate. According to the news website Counter Punch: "The cost for a single soldier to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan is about $775,000 per year" and a large proportion of that outstanding figure is spent on their transport. With a nation that is planning several cuts to it's military and more importantly the upcoming withdrawal from the aforementioned countries this program wouldn't last long enough for the unfortunate to reap the benefits. Also would this food not rot in the process of being distributed? Whilst this is a wonderful idea the cost is too much to burden for such little results.
I ask you, if the military can't afford to send this food over and if the Kitchens can't afford to collect the food then how do you get it into the mouths of the needy? Surely the most logical answer isn't to send any food anywhere, maybe it's to cut down on the consumption of food within the U.S. Military.
Good day to you sir.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The debaters tied on all subjects except arguments. Cons entire debate was structured on the cost of transporting food from conflict regions into the USA. This was refuted simply and effectively by pros assertion that the food would be distributed locally rather than abroad. Debate goes to pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.