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

I.) Just governments can't exist Pro's Argument1.) The resolution makes an assumption that just governments can exist2.) I (Con) accepted the resolution with this knowledge3.) Thus I (con) have agreed and accepted that just governments do exist 4.) Meaning, My(con) first argument is invalid Rebutal 1.) Agreed2.) Agreed 3.) Disagree 4.) DisagreeArgument: My acceptance of the round does not mean that I have accepted underlying assumptions in the resolution. Proofa.) 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 round1.) in order to invalidate a claim, you must make counter claims against it2.) 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 place3.) I have proven his argumentation against my basis is wrong4.) Thus my argument still stands5.) pro has stipulated that the last round is conclusion so No new arguments can be made in conclusion rounds6.) thus because my argument still stands, and because pro can't refute it anymore the argument must be considered correct7.) If the argument is true then then the resolution cant be affirmed because it is impossible for it to be true in the first place8.) if the resolution is not affirmed, pro must lose the round automatically III.) The Founding Father's debateArgument: 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 moralphilosophers 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 wrongb.) 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 RightsPro claims that I am basing my arguments off of a hypothetical situationI 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 lolThank 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