Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Pro's responses to the K miss the point entirely and only beg the same questions that the K criticizes. Start on Nietzche 1. Extend it out. God is dead at the hands of humanity. Our attempts to bring Him back to life via appealing to moral standards re-kills Him over and over again. Without God's life, there lacks an authoritative norm behind moral standards to give them reasons to believe them. Without God having the final moral say in what is actually good and what is actually bad, we wouldn't know which of Pro's standards was actually the correct standard to live by.His only response to this is that he's proposing other theories of helping people to be the moral foundation to base our beliefs on. But all this does it literally concedes the link to the K coming out of Brown 1. These theories that he's proposing are exactly the moralism that's destroying society and is the exact opposite of morality. With this response, not that he was really contesting the link to begin with, there's absolutely no way for him to avoid the harms of the K. Hold him to the link.Then go to Brown 1. Extend it out. The attempt to bring up other theories to base our moral impulses off of in the wake of the death of God creates a moralism that's without morality. Our desire for "good" is still there, yet the telos for the good has disapeered creates the exact opposite of morality.His only response is to question the warrant coming out of Brown, but the warrants are clear. Without the telos of the good, our yearnings for moral good are without basis and lack definitive meaning. We keep insisting that we know what's good and important and true and we cling to our other standards as warrant for why what we're doing is the right thing, but we lack reason for doing so and an explanation for why we keep doing so much for so little. We're paralyzed in our inability to know what to do with the absense of God, and so we lash out in a primal sense and moralism is the mask to hide our weakness. The "health benefits" he talks about and how it provides happiness are a perfect example of this. Without God we have no explanation for our feelings and desires, so we just irrationally throw ourselves out there and say that we should be helping other people without an ultimate reason for why we ought to be doing this: we just feel like we should be doing this and we feel better when we do it.Then go to Nietzsche 2. Extend it out. Without God providing us our reasoning for doing things and giving us a source for the demands imposed on us, all of our impulses and desires are without a source and without a reason and become disvalued and disenfranchised. Nietzsche compares it to the evolution of water animals when they were forced to either adapt to land or die off. Our old impulses and desires still impose their demands on us, but we have to find new ways of fulfilling them. We pick something, anything, to work against, to demonize as the enemy and as something to be abolished and destroyed without any hesitation. And once it's defeated and eliminated, we have to find something else to strive against as quickly as possible. Without something to fight against, we tear ourselves apart in the downtime. Moralism is a constant physical and ethical struggle against ourselves and the outside world which encompases literally every individual on the face of the earth, which is going to out-weigh all other impacts. Pro's only response to this is to question the warrant, but the warrants are clear and I literally just explained them. Nietzsche literally walks you through the warrants almost in a step-by-step basis, so it's on him if he can't understand the warrant. Then go to Brown 2. Extend it out. Rather than address the root cause of our problems, to find ways to address the problems that we're facing and admit to our weakness and impotence, we prefer to ignore the problem and instead shift the attention away from our weakness and onto something else to fight. We'd much rather think that, despite our human flaws, we're still fighting the moral fight, still "fighting the good fight" than admit that we have no reason for believing what we believe. Within moralism, there isn't actually a way to solve for it. A society of moralism won't ever address the problem of moralism, instead preferring to just moralize harder and shift the attention away from the problem.Pro's response is the perfect example of Brown 2. Instead of addressing the problem and addressing the faults of moralism, he just shifts the attention away from it by insisting that we still have ways to do good. We still have all these other moral axioms to address problems! We can still fight the good fight! His response only solidifes the warrants in Brown 2.Then go to Brown 3. Extend it out, because this is the most crucial piece and why you're ultimately negating at the end of the day. The way out of moralism is by negating. Instead of tying your vote to whichever belief system the affirmative decides to espouse at the end of the day, use it to criticize and poke holes in the assumptions of his ethics. This is the only way we can craft a new orientiation towards life that doesn't collapse into moralism. We need to critique moralism, not re-use it, and the only way to critique moralism is by negating. This is the game-over mistake for Pro because he 100% drops this argument. There's no response made by him to address this at all in his last speech. And this is critical to the K since the alternative is the most important part of the K and he didn't put a single response onto it. Don't let him make a response to it in his last round since I won't have a chance to respond to it, plus he had the opportunity to address it and didn't. This means that you can't look to any of the five theories he provides in his case as a reason to affirm. They're all links to moralism, and I'm winning 100% of the K debate, so that takes out 100% of his arguments in favor of the resolution. And since he doesn't respond to the alternative, I'm extending our clear offense and reasons to negate the resolution. Case closed, stick a fork in it, you probably don't even need to read the last speech. Again, don't let him make a response to the alternative in the last round since he 100% dropped it.But let's go back to the substance (the little bit of substance that there is). First, he doesn't respond to my argument that his theories don't actually have warrants to them as to why they actually affirm the resolution. All of his arguments talk about ways that they could affirm the resolution, but he doesn't actually prove any of them or provide any kind of warrants for why they actually do affirm the resolution. Without this there's no reason to buy into any of the arguments he provides.Second, he provides some link for why the WFP is effective, but this literally bites into the argument I advance in Franks which talks about how his specific system sucks d*ck. Our attempts to give food to other people, specifically the WFP, only just gives the food over to terrorist organizations (al Shabaab), which does the exact opposite of what it's aiming to do. You can also extend out Franks as a turn to his case on a contentional level. We're not actually helping people and fulfilling any of the frameworks he proposes if the food we're trying to give to starving people is just ending up in the hands of terrorists because not only are the people we're trying to help not actually receiving the help, meaning they're still starving and all of those negatives still occuring, but we're literally just feeding terrorists who are going to go on to try and kill us later on down the road, which is even more negatives. This makes the debate really clear and the easiest negative vote of your lives:1. I'm clearly extending out and winning 100% of the K. The K is a) a sufficient response to his arguments, since all of the different ethical theories he posits as reasons to affirm the resolution are links into the K, and b) a reason to negate the resolution, since he drops the alternative to moralism. 2. I'm showing you how his arguments don't actually affirm the resolution, since he lacks the warrants to show why under his different theories that providing food security actually affirms the resolution. 3. I'm showing you that attempting to provide food security for people actually doesn't work and the food we send just ends up in the hands of terrorists, meaning that we don't actually end up providing security for anyone.