Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for its citizens

Let’s begin :) Famous chef Paul Prudhomme was once quoted in saying, “You don’t need a silver fork to eat good food. ” This quote directly correlates to food security. One shouldn’t be required to be rich in order to eat good food, or food that is healthy and sustainable for human life. This food security is widely inaccessible. Ensuring food security would allow those individuals currently affected by harmful food to obtain that food security. It is because of this that I affirm the resolution. In this debate, the primary value will be that of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the ethical philosophy where happiness of most people is thought to be the greater good. Happiness, in this sense, is directly applicable to sustainability and survival, thus upholding the resolution the affirmative side. We should value utilitarianism because, under the resolution, it enables the majority of people to have food security where they no longer live in doubt of whether or not their food is suitable to eat. The value criterion I will use by which to judge the value will be that of the minimization of human sufferings. Specifically, this value criterion defines these human sufferings to be hunger, lack of sufficient food, and other problems in direct correlation to food security and the lack thereof. Food security: physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food. Prefer this definition as it accounts for both physical and economic access. Governments: a governing body (local, state, federal) With this in mind, please move with me to the crux of the debate. C1: Food insecurity is a real problem Food insecurity is one of the most problematic dilemmas the world faces. So many people across the globe, and even in the United States. Brian Knowlings, journalist, New York Times, “Hunger in U. S. at a 14-year High,” 2009 “14.6% of people [in the U. S. ] ‘had difficulty putting enough food on the table. .. ’ The number of households in which both adults and children experience ‘very low food security’ rose by more than half… With unemployment and other economic indicators continuing to worsen, there are likely to be many more people struggling with hunger than this report states… the escalating unemployment rate and the number of the working poor, lead us to believe that the number of people facing hunger will continue to rise significantly…” Angela Mwaniki, senior scientist, General Mills, United Nations, “Achieving Food Security in Africa: Challenges and Issues” “While the rest of the world has made significant progress towards poverty alleviation, Africa, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa, continues to lag behind… Food security on the continent [of Africa] has worsened since 1970 and the proportion of the malnourished population has remained within the 33 to 35 percent range in Sub-Saharan Africa . The prevalence of malnutrition within the continent varies by region. It is lowest in Northern Africa (4 percent) and highest in Central Africa (40 percent). ” These statistics prove the huge problem of food insecurity, and how prevalent and harmful it is to individuals across the globe. C2: Food insecurity has multiple harms, most of which are solved by the converse. A host of harms exist when families and individuals are suffering from food insecurity, the foremost of which is poverty. A: Without food security, cyclical poverty is increasingly evident. Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations, “Poverty, Purchasing Power and Food Security,” July 6, 2014 “Adequate food to all individuals must be quickly assured. Without [adequate food], people cannot break the vicious cycle of poverty. Thus… poverty has greatly influenced food insecurity… Families found to be having consumption expenditure less than the required are considered to be living below the poverty line. ” Moreover, unsolved poverty leads to genocide. James Gilligan, former Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School, “Reflections of our Deadliest Epidemic,” 2000 “Every fifteen years, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two or three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. ” B: Food insecurity can literally cause war. War can actually stem from rampant food insecurity throughout the world. William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, “Atlantic Monthly: The Great Climate Flip-Flop,” January 1998 “Plummeting crop yields would cause more powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands… this would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War. ” C3: Food security legislations have been effective in mitigating human sufferings, which indubitably results in utilitarianism. The negative will try to argue that the proposed resolution will fail, and that effective legislation doesn’t exist. However, that theory is incorrect. Food security legislation has been effective and beneficial in the past, and will continue to do so. Dr. Luca Alinovi, Food and Agricultural Representative in Kenya, “Kenya: Regional Integration Key to Kenya’s Food Security,” March 9, 2015 “63 countries, mostly from the developing world, have reached the hunger target in the first Millennium Development Goal. Sustained political commitment at the highest level, with food security and nutrition as top priorities, is a prerequisite for hunger eradication. .. hunger is a top priority of the African Union [and] African Heads of State [is] committing to end hunger on the continent by 2025. ” Moreover, food security programs can have positive impacts on state budgets. Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, “Food Stamps/SNAP A Fork-Ready Stimulus,” March 2009 “Increased food stamp participation [or other programs] has an added beneficial impact on the state budget. By providing federal nutrition benefits, a significant portion of income that would otherwise be spent on food would be spent on taxable items, thereby adding to sales revenue. ” Let’s move on to my opponent’s case, where he begins by talking about the Nazis. He says the problems (murder of Jews) resulted from an effort to reach the “ultimate goal. ” What he fails to point out, though, is that the ultimate goal of Adolf Hitler was vastly different than what the resolution is working towards. Hitler’s goal was world domination. The resolution’s goal is to ensure food security, ultimately to do away with hunger. The two are polar opposites. Other than that, his primary and only argument is that the resolution doesn’t specify a particular plan to carry out the resolution and achieve food security. He then jumps to conclusions and make the assumption that the food will be taken from those with more than enough. Instead, however, the plan would actually be designed to assist individuals in a morally permissible manner. Organizations could easily be devoted (and already are) to researching technology to ensure that crops yielded are safe during the growing and harvesting seasons, and post-harvest as well. Further, these plans among others have been tested before and have been successful (C3). With this, all of my opponent’s points have fallen. Thus ends round 2. :) It is for these reasons and many more I would politely urge a vote in affirmation in today’s debate. Please vote Pro. I would like to thank my opponent for graciously allowing me to debate with him/her. I look forward to the next rounds of this debate. :)