This House would limit the amount of food aid that developed nations can freely provide.
This debate is for the WODC.
The final round must include no new arguments.
The first round is for acceptance - this round should be posted immediately by the other side.
Standard rules apply - no trolling/ridiculous semantics.
It is evident that nations, being representatives of the will of the populace, should be regulated for the same reason that the will of any individual should be regulated: in order to promote the right order of things. If it would be wrong for one person to do something, it is equally wrong for a state to do that same thing, for the state is nothing more than the embodiment of singular people, and, since wrongness should be destroyed at any opportunity, a state is, properly, to be stopped whenever it wishes to do something which would lead to such wrongness. From this reasoning it can be drawn that limitations on states are justified when their absence would result in a greater state of wrongness than their presence – laws are just when they promote what is right.
What, then, is right? No moral system which proposes that it is more honourable to let leeches feed on the blood of the noble than it is to let them wither and die can hold any water, for they ignore the key principle of any good morality: might makes right. What good is any philosophy when it is clear that the most holy of men, by common standards, is nothing more than an ant in the eye of he with strength? The greatest kings, ruling with iron fists, were not stopped by the mere thought of petty “virtue” - what weight can the precious philosophies of old have when faced with the sword? All these illusions vanish as soon as the fists of the corporeal Gods strike down upon them and turn them into nothing more than dust – remnants of a misguided and ill culture.
The weak are weak because they do not have the ability to survive on their own – the starving are starving because they do not have the ability to find food. This is their burden and their burden alone, and the concept of extending it to those who have actually achieved something with their lives is the most destructive and disgusting idea possible – it denigrates the strong by placing them on the same level as those who deserve nothing more than to wallow in their slow crawl towards oblivion. A pithy reminder of the effects of charity from Mein Kampf : “But if among all these cripples there was one who was sound of limb he had to use all his strength to sustain the others and thus he himself was practically paralysed.”
To quote Nietzsche, a German who has also recognized the impotence of “love” and “charity”, as he wrote in The Antichrist: “What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness […] The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance […] What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak” 
The idea of a developed (i.e. civilized and accomplished) nation giving out any sort of aid is preposterous. Such aid doesn't appear out of thin air – it must be twisted from its proper use of fueling the strong in order for it to be given to the weak.
Even if the weak will ostensibly become beneficial to the strong after being helped, it is repugnant to let them actualize this state through any means other than their own pure and unadulterated wills. The most powerful man is not he who stands on the shoulders of others; the most powerful man stands alone over all, relying on none. The impoverished cannot truly be said to become worthy of respect if they do not rise out of the dirt alone. To help them is to extend a hand out to them – something without which they would be too frail to move an inch. If one of these wretched creatures did accept the help, it is not via their own merits that they would thrive – they are completely and totally indebted to the helper, and, thus, are slaves.
If such slaves are useful to a master, they are useful only because the master is weak enough to have need for them. I have shown just how pitiful those who would need aid are – to suggest that it should still be given in order for the strong to reap the benefits is to say that the strong can find something of value in the subhuman filth. True power, the ideal that all nations and peoples should aim towards, does not and could not find any use for the wretched. It is for this reason that the ideal state would not even consider sustaining them for the benefit of its citizens – any citizen that would desire such a thing is weak enough to deserve to rot with the rest of those creatures.
To quote the venerable Ragnar Redbeard's work Might is Right , “But that is a harsh philosophy? Nature is harsh, cruel, merciless to all unlovely things. Her smile is only for the Courageous, the Strong, the Beautiful and the All-Daring. You have no comfort for the 'poor and lowly,' the 'innocent ones,' the 'downtrodden[?]' The poor and lowly are a creeping pestilence — there are no innocent ones, and the downtrodden are the justly damned —sinners in a hell they've made. You praise the Strong, you glorify the Mighty ones? I do. They are Nature's noblemen. In them she delights: the All-Vanquishers! the Dauntless Ones!”
What of states which do not value the strong? The answer is that they are as weak as the most malnourished leper. They actively fuel the ghouls that deserve to be wiped off of the earth, and, for that reason, it is the obligation of the truly noble state, the state which prizes the true Ubermensch over all else, to destroy such self-sacrificial nations – thus limiting the provision of free food aid both within itself and outside of itself. As such, the resolution is affirmed.
More than 1 billion people are suffering from hunger.  And if we stop providing food aid, that number will go up. Pro says we not only have a moral obligation to let these people starve to death, we also have a moral obligation to destroy anyone who tries to aid them (i.e. "self-sacrificial nations"). In effect, Pro advocates destroying China, India, and every developed country. About 1 billion people live in developed countries, and another 2 billion live in China/India.  Putting all this together, Pro advocates a global holocaust of somewhere between 3 and 4 billion people. That's around 1/2 our population, including most of our scientists, engineers, doctors, philosophers, writers, farmers, and so on.
This position is absurd. How will Pro accomplish this global holocaust? How much will it cost? How will Pro avoid a nuclear holocast that wipes out everyone? If Pro is successful, who will benefit? How will they benefit? Will those benefits outweigh the harms? Pro's plan is incredibly vague, leaving a host of unanswered questions in its wake. In fact, Pro hasn't even identified a single, concrete benefit to his plan. Of course, Pro cites Hitler as an authority. Perhaps Pro intends to follow in Hitler's footsteps. I have no doubt that Hitler knew a thing or three about performing a global holocaust. But citing Hitler just emphasizes the moral vacuity of Pro's position. And it also puts the harms into perspective: the Nazi holocaust will pale in comparison with Pro's global holocaust.
Pro's argument itself is incoherent. If what matters is strength, why limit people? Why deprive anyone the right to provide food aid? Besides, how would a prohibition on food aid even work in Pro's world? If the strongest person wants to provide food aid, how will Pro stop her? If she thinks giving food aid will make her stronger, who is Pro to challenge her? If might makes right, she decides what is right, not Pro. The might-makes-right principle means morality shifts depending on who, at any given point, is the strongest person. If might makes right, anything is permissible as long as you can justify it with strength. Thus, Pro's might-makes-right principle is inconsistent with Pro's categorical prohibition on food aid. In fact, developed countries in a position to provide food aid are already the strongest, so why limit their powers?
Why is anyone obligated to destroy the weak? Pro offers no answer. And Pro offers no answer because under his framework, no answer exists. Strength itself determines what is permissible. As such, the entirety of Pro's argument boils down to nothing more than bigotry, much like Hitler's argument for exterminating the Jews. I begin with a different set of assumptions. I assume that death from lack of food is bad. I assume that exterminating 1/2 our population based on bigotry is bad. At bottom, these moral intuitions are based on the idea that human life is a basic good worth preserving. To be sure, I can't prove these moral intuitions by reference to logical syllogism. Rather, I can only point to our shared practical human experiences. I point to the way we respect persons and things because of what they are, not because of what they can do for us. I point to our political and legal systems premised on the notion that human life is a basic good. I point to the way we honor family and friends, or works of nature or art, not out of self-interest, but out of respect for their inherent value.
Killing 3 to 4 billion people with the sole purpose of ending food aid is absurd, and it completely violates an understanding of human life as a basic good. To win this debate, I only need to show that food aid is morally permissible. As long as food aid is permissible, there's no basis for prohibiting it. Under Pro's might-makes-right framework, providing food aid is permissible, because strength itself determines what is permissible. Under my framework, in which human life is a basic good, providing food aid is permissible because it helps save people from starving to death. You can vote Con under either framework. But you should also vote Con because it means 3 to 4 billion people survive, including our brightest scientists, thinkers, and farmers. The infrastructure of our society would crumble under Pro's plan. That alone is reason to vote Con. But remember, even under Pro's framework, I win the debate, because food aid is still permissible.
I fully accept Con's analysis of what my position, if put into practice, would yield – it's certainly true that my stance would necessitate a global genocide and I've made no effort to hide that fact. He raises the question of how this genocide would be carried out – these specific details are irrelevant if I have shown that, no matter if such a thing would work or not, the strong must try to implement a system of mass extermination. In other words, the strong need to succeed or die trying, thus eliminating the need for specifics to be addressed – there can be no potential alternative plan to advocate in place of whatever plan for genocide actually arises, so the merits of the plan for genocide do not need to be comparatively weighed against any other plan, negating the need for them to be stated.
Con asks what benefits can come from a mass genocide. The answer is simple: the rightful domination of the strong. No potential cost can outweigh this, considering how there is no other conceivable state of affairs that is acceptable. It is, by definition, the right order of things – is that not benefit enough?
My opponent makes the argument that, since might makes right, a strong person could decide to provide food aid, and, by virtue of their strength, make such a practice acceptable. This point was already preempted in my first round – see: “any citizen that would desire such a thing is weak enough to deserve to rot with the rest of those creatures.” My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that it is even possible for one to be both strong and altruistic – my arguments show exactly why charity precludes the giver being considered strong by any metric. True strength cannot coexist with charity, and, as such, my opponent's argument is shown to be based on nothing but a misunderstanding of what strength is. Food aid cannot be justified through strength because none who are in favour of food aid can, by definition, be strong, thus neutralizing any potential problems with my position.
My opponent claims that I have not justified the fact that the strong have an obligation to cleanse those beneath them, but this justification was given in my previous round: “It is evident that nations, being representatives of the will of the populace, should be regulated for the same reason that the will of any individual should be regulated: in order to promote the right order of things.” Unless my opponent wishes to contest this on the grounds that the right order of things should not be pursued, in which case he can offer no case of his own, considering he would see no reason to pursue one course of action over another, no further justification is needed. Exterminating the weak would result in the proper triumph of the strong, and, thus, should be pursued by all.
My opponent talks about assuming that life has inherent value, but admits himself that he has no proof for this claim. He can only point to the fact that most people would agree with it, which is completely insufficient – the truth of a proposition is not dependent on how many people accept it. If acceptance was sufficient to alter the truth value of a proposition, my opponent must admit that, throughout history, many positions were widely held that would completely contradict his own; he would have to accept as once being valid, for example, Nazi Germany's acceptance of ethnic cleansing and the Mongolian philosophy of rape, pillaging, and conquest. Taking this even further, even the most basic truths that my opponent likely would view as self-evident would turn out to be falsehoods if this relativism was accepted – the Earth would be flat and the Sun a God.
The burden of proof in this debate is not shared. The burden is on Pro because Pro is the instigator, he advocates a change in the status quo, he advocates a controversial position that challenges our fundamental beliefs, and he advocates the use of force (i.e. to prohibit food aid).
What is Pro's burden?
Unless Pro meets these burdens, Pro cannot win this debate. Furthermore, to meet these burdens, Pro must justify each point through more than bare assertions. This is the standard that Pro holds me to, so he too much be held to that standard.
At this point, Pro has failed to meet his proof burdens. Pro asserts his might-makes-right and exterminate-the-weak framework without offering any substantiation or justification for that framework. In contrast, I grounded my human-life-is-inherently-valuable framework on practical human experience. This is precisely how Aristotle reasoned in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argued not from logical constructs or by reference to some hypothetical world. Instead, Aristotle argued from life's experiences and observations of human nature.
That human life has inherent value is suggested by the fact that countless people every day protect human life (their own or another's) without thinking about any good beyond life itself. We protect life instinctively in everything from our homicide laws to our traffic laws to our latest government programs for health care. This is why the Declaration of Independence declares it "self-evident" that "all men [and women] are created equal" and enjoy "certain unalienable Rights," and "that among these are Life." 
To the extent that Pro says my framework is grounded in "acceptance," Pro simply mistakes the nature of moral reasoning itself. Per Aristotle, all moral truths are derived through practical human experience. That is the basis of my framework, not "acceptance." Under my framework, Pro loses this debate outright, because his plan leads to a global holocaust of 4 billion people.
Even under Pro's framework, Pro still loses the debate, because Pro's plan kills our best scientists, thinkers, and artists. I would argue these scientists and thinkers are a potential source of new technologies that increase strength far beyond anything the strong gain from killing the weak. In particular, biotechnologies, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence will exponentially increase the strong's power. Whatever the strong may gain from exterminating the weak (this supposed benefit is still completely vague and undefined) simply cannot outweigh the exponential gains in power that the strong can acquire from our best scientists and thinkers.
But more to the point, all this is irrelevant, because Pro's plan will fail. Pro even admits his plan will probably fail. The likely outcome is that the so-called strong die in their attempts to exterminate 4 billion people. They'll either die through a nuclear holocaust that wipes out everyone, or more likely, they'll simply be defeated by the joined forces of China, India, and every developed country. Pro says this is irrelevant. But feasibility/success is relevant because if Pro's plan fails, then China, India, and every developed country will continue providing food aid, negating the resolution. Pro's plan must succeed if Pro wants to prohibit food aid, so Pro cannot win the debate unless his plan succeeds.
Furthermore, if failure is certain (and it is), the strong will be better off if they don't pursue a global holocaust, because they'll be alive instead of dead. So, the outcome is better for everyone if Pro's plan is not pursued. Therefore, under either Pro's framework or my framework, the status quo is preferable to Pro's plan.
Before concluding, let me briefly go through Pro's other failed proof burdens, for the sake of being thorough. Pro has failed to show that the strong must exterminate the weak. Why should they? Pro says because they must dominate the weak. Why is extermination necessary? Pro says because it is rightful order of things. But that isn't an answer. Why is domination of the weak the rightful order of things? Pro offers no answer. Pro's entire argument is empty and substanceless. These empty, bare assertions are not sufficient to meet his proof burden, especially for such a controversial position as a global holocaust of 4 billion people.
Pro says we must prohibit food aid. But why prohibit the strong from doing anything? Pro says because being both strong and altruistic is impossible. I have two responses to that. First, Pro offers no evidence or substantiation for this assertion, so again, it's just a bare assertion with no proof or justification. In fact, empirical evidence shows that being strong involves altruism as a matter of evolution and natural selection.  The article I cite shows that altruism is so important that human beings would not survive without it.
Second, even if being both strong and altruistic is impossible, why prohibit the strong from anything? That act of force is both unnecessary and itself impossible. Pro cannot prohibit the strong from doing anything, so his categorical prohibition on food aid is unenforceable and therefore irrelevant. And if the strong decide what is right, Pro cannot say whether food aid is morally permissible. Under Pro's framework, the strong decide, not Pro. I said this last round and Pro offered no response, so consider this point dropped, and extended.
Finally, note that Pro's entire plan is inconsistent with his might-makes-right framework. Asserting a categorical prohibition on food aid is inconsistent with a might-makes-right framework because a might-makes-right framework is inconsistent with any categorical prohibitions. In such a system, right and wrong shift depending on what the strong decide at any given moment. When strength determines what is permissible, nothing may be prohibited categorically. That means morality depends on the specific circumstances; right and wrong are determined on a case-by-case basis. Pro advocates a complete prohibition on food aid, and the destruction of anyone who provides food aid, which simply doesn't square with his might-makes-right framework. Limiting the strong without justification simply has no purpose in Pro's system. Besides being unenforceable, if the strong never provide food aid because doing so is incompatible with strength, then a categorical prohibition itself is unnecessary.
On Practicality and Failure
My opponent makes the claim that, because my plan may and most likely will fail, I'm unable to affirm the resolution. This can be shown to be absurd through analogy. Imagine that a debate on the resolution “We should colonize Mars” occurred – it would be impossible to negate the resolution by saying that it's implausible to do such a thing in itself. Any such argument depends on the alternative being better – even if the odds of successfully colonizing Mars were astronomically low but still possible, it should be tried if not doing so would be impossibly worse. In this hypothetical debate, Con could argue that the money spent on the endeavor would be better used elsewhere as a result of the fact that it's overwhelmingly likely that the plan would fail, but this only has impact because the plan failing would be worse than having never tried to follow through with it in the first place. It is the combination of the chance of failure and the effects of the failure which would carry any weight, not the chance of failure alone. For this reason, my opponent must show that even the worst-case scenario of my plan (i.e. the strong dying) would be worse than the status quo to win, and, if I can show the opposite (that even if my plan fails the world would be no worse for it), the chance of success (and the resulting benefits) would outbalance his objections and I would win. The only way to escape this is to show that the success of the plan is logically impossible (in the strictest sense of the word), which my opponent has not done.
If it's true that there is no “right” apart from that which the strong call “right”, then, if the strong cannot achieve this state of rightness, everything else is equally a-right – because of this, my opponent cannot claim that the death of the strong is any worse than sharing the world with the weak, since the only possibly positive scenario is the one in which the strong have complete control.
With this in mind, the following cost-benefit analysis shows the correct course of action:
Choice One: Do nothing – allow the weak to co-inhabit the earth with the men who would otherwise be truly strong.
Choice Two: Attempt to exterminate the weak
Result of Choice One: The strong are alive, but this is completely a-right, since “rightness” is only defined if the strong are allowed control and have overcome the morality of altruism.
Result of Choice Two, Outcome A: The strong die, this is a-right since the strong cannot define “right”.
Result of Choice Two, Outcome B: The strong exterminate the weak and gain complete control, and therefore the world is right.
Since the worst-case scenario of choice two, a choice which has a possible outcome which would be desirable, is equivalent to the status quo, choice two should be chosen in order for the possible good outcome – after all, if choice two fails, nothing at all is lost.
On the Rightness of the Rule of the Strong and the Lack of Value of the Weak
My opponent asks: “Why is domination of the weak the rightful order of things? Pro offers no answer.” I did, however, answer this in my first round – quote: “All these illusions [of morality] vanish as soon as the fists of the corporeal Gods strike down upon them and turn them into nothing more than dust – remnants of a misguided and ill culture.” The point here is obvious, though maybe not explicit enough for Con's taste – no moral system has value if it can be freely ignored. As such, the only concept of “rightness” that can exist is that of those who cannot be bound by any other – the Ubermensch. These people, the strong, transcend the ideas of traditional good and evil, and, in doing so, set a new standard: the standard they set. Nothing outside of themselves can bound them, and, as such, there is no code for them to follow but that which they choose to follow – the code of the strong that the strong set by virtue of their strength is the only logical thing to honour. The extermination of the weak follows – for the weak to be worth keeping alive they must give some value to the strong, which is impossible, so they must be a burden, and burdens degrade the status of the strong, so they must be removed. This extends to any country helping the weak, for they themselves are weak and must therefore be a burden to be eliminated.
As explained before, helping the weak, for whatever reason, lowers you to their level. If, as Con says, many benefits would potentially come from the weak if they are saved, this reveals something else: the idea that the strong can find any such benefits in the first place. What can benefit a being who is already at the peak of their potential? If a great, albeit weak, scientist were to help a supposedly strong man, this shows that the strong man was incomplete and needed to rely on the weak – because the truly strong man, by virtue of the fact that the strong set their own values unrestrained by others (for the strong are those that overcome), is an island unto himself, being “helped” by the weak shows that he himself isn't strong and therefore has no worth, negating Con's point – no strong man could ever possibly benefit from the weak.
On the Paradoxical “Altruistic Strong” and the Idea That I Would Limit the Strong
I was accused of dropping this point, but I addressed it completely – here's a recap. My opponent contradicts himself quite clearly here: he first writes “even if being both strong and altruistic is impossible”, accepting, for the sake of argument, that the strong cannot be altruistic (a point of mine that he does nothing to refute), and then says that I can't affirm the resolution because one “cannot prohibit the strong from doing anything.” The disconnect here is obvious, shown in the following set of syllogisms:
p.1 Being simultaneously strong and altruistic is impossible
p.2 Certain countries are altruistic
c.1 Those countries cannot be strong
p.3 Only strong countries must not be governed
(unchallenged, given in my case)
p.4 Countries that are altruistic are not strong
c.2 Countries that are altruistic can be governed
My creed is not relativism – this completely relies on the strong and no one else. If one is not strong, they cannot be arbiters of right and wrong, and therefore can be limited without contradiction.
On the Folly of Justifying Herd Morality by Appeal to the Acts of the Herd
My opponent makes a very odd argument – he argues that he doesn't draw his justifications for his moral system through its widespread acceptance but rather through the fact that many people follow it. This redefinition does nothing to affect my arguments – they all still apply. Even if it's overwhelmingly common for people to view murder as immoral, that doesn't do anything to prove the immorality of murder, just as the widespread acceptance of genocide by the Germans in WWII didn't make such genocide justifiable (for those reasons – it was justified for other and more substantial reasons). The fact of the matter is that my opponent grounds his framework in what most humans believe without realizing that most humans could be flat-out wrong (as they have been in the past, as my opponent must admit). A mass-delusion is a delusion all the same, and it is for this reason that common behaviors do not justify those behaviours – leaving Con's appraisal of morality with no solid supports.
The burden of proof is on Pro insofar as I have to show that restricting food aid is good and prove that my framework that leads to that position is solid; I fully recognize that I have to do everything that Con lists. However, this doesn't mean that Con can be completely passive - Con has the burden of disproving my arguments and showing that either my premises or conclusions are false,which he hasn't accomplished - all he's done is misrepresent what strength is and appeal to a magical "moral intuition" (which amounts to nothing more than saying "You're wrong because I know I'm right”).
Pro argues that the so-called strong "should" destroy all developed nations, which in turn "will" limit the amount of food aid they can provide. To make this argument, Pro must prove two things: (1) that the strong "should" destroy developed nations, and (2) that Pro's plan "will" actually limit the ability of developed nations to provide food aid.
|Who won the debate:||-|