Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Contention One: Providing food doesn’t work a) Attempts to provide people with food in an attempt to establish food security just gives food to the wrong people. No one who actually needs food ends up getting any food. Fong ‘12: Fong, Phyllis K. “Statement Of The Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Before The Committee On Oversight And Government Reform, U.S. House OF Representatives.” United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. August 03, 2012. Web. February 05, 2015. <http://www.usda.gov......; “recipients … misrepresent themselves to receive benefits. … a series of audits of 10 States to assess … potentially fraudulent recipients … revealed that a total of 8,594 recipients were receiving potential improper payments. Some … were using the social security numbers of deceased individuals … these recipients could be receiving about $1.1 million a month.” b) Attempts to provide food aid to people just gets hijacked by terrorists and insurgents. Affirming only helps the people who are out to kill us. Somalia proves. Franks ‘09: Franks, Suzanne. “Public Perception And Policy: Famine And Food Securitization In The Horn Of Africa.” Chatham House. December 06, 2009. Web. February 03, 2015. <http://www.chathamhouse.org......; “the [WFP] was left with little decision but to withdraw from Somalia in 2011. Much of its food aid was being lost to al Shabaab. This left a lot more people vulnerable to famine but there are very significant risks regarding where food aid will ultimately end up.” c) Trying to provide food to people via food stamps has actually NEGATIVELY impacted food security overall. Wilde ‘03: Wilde, Parke. “The Effect Of Food Stamps On Food Security: A Panel Data Approach.” Review of Agricultural Economics. January 01, 2003. Web. February 09, 2015. <intl-aepp.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/425.full> “The … (USDA) estimated that 11.1% of American households were food insecure in 2002 … Among low-income food stamp participants, the rate of food insecurity was 51.4%. Among low-income nonparticipants, the rate was 28.7% … a few studies have sought to measure the FSP’s effect on food insufficiency or food insecurity … Food stamps were negatively associated with food sufficiency in least squares regression models, but there was no association in models that sought to correct for selection bias.” Contention Two: We’re too corrupt for this to be at all beneficial a) Attempts to use food welfare in the US is actively abused. People use food stamps to buy drugs and illegal weapons. Affirming doesn’t actually help anyone. Fong 2: “OIG has … found fraud and … in many types of trafficking in SNAP benefits. By giving a recipient $50 in cash for $100 in benefits … recipients .. are then able to spend the cash however they like. Recipients have exchanged benefits for drugs, weapons, and other contraband. When trafficking occurs unchecked, families do not receive the intended nutritional assistance, and unscrupulous retailers profit at the expense of the American public.” b) The USDA knows about the corruption and won’t do anything about it. We’re intentionally screwing over civilians in the affirmative world. Fong 3: “we found that FNS does not verify SNAP retailers’ criminal records and therefore cannot comply with its own requirement to deny SNAP to any retailer with a criminal history … FNS concluded that our recommendation would need a regulatory change and may not be cost beneficial … we determined that FNS did not debar any of the 615 wholesalers and retailers convicted … even though a conviction is adequate grounds for debarment. … it is not FNS’ policy to do so. …” c) And even when we do take action, the offending parties have plenty of ways around the restrictions and can continue to defraud the USFG. There’s no way for the aff to solve for the harms of corruption. Fong 4: “When FNS determines that a retailer is abusing the program, the agency places it on the disqualified vendor list … some disqualified retailers have found ways around this particular control. … a disqualified retailer can enlist … a “straw owner,” … By reapplying to the program using the name of this “straw owner,” the disqualified retailer sets up the business again and continues criminal activities … in … Connecticut … a store owner was deported after being convicted of food stamp trafficking fraud … years later, … he illegally reentered the US and opened several stores using other individuals’ names. … to accept SNAP benefits … and … defraud the Government … $2 million … a group … in Florida … executed this scheme … three times … trafficked approximately $6.2 million …” Contention Three: Benefits to negating a) Food insecurity actually prevents insurgent violence. Hendrix ‘13 provides 3 warrants: Hendrix, Cullen. “Food Insecurity And Conflict Dynamics: Causal Linkages And Complex Feedbacks.” INternational Journal of Stability of Security and Development. January 27, 2013. Web. February 03, 2015. <http://www.stabilityjournal.org......; “First, acute insecurity … diminishes the resources available to militants. Military thinkers ranging from Sun Tzu to Napoleon have recognized that the ability to forage is a binding constraint on militaries - especially those, such as rebel organizations, that lack sophisticated logistics and support networks. Rebel movements typically do not grow their own food and depend on voluntary or coerced contributions from the population. … Second, food insecurity can hinder active political participation - including participation in civil conflict - at the individual level. People experiencing acute food insecurity invest virtually all their effort in the pursuit of food, leaving little time and energy for the pursuit of … ideological ends … civil conflict is relatively more prevalent under conditions of relative food abundance and better agro-climatic conditions … Finally, the fact that food denial is often incorporated into counterinsurgency operations suggests that acute and severe food insecurity should suppress insurgent violence …” Onto the pro case. While her case looks really long and detailed, literally the entirety of her case revolves around a single idea: give people food because they need food to live. So let's talk about that idea. First, cross apply my contention one about how attempts to provide people with food don't work and end up in the hands of the wrong people or in the hands of really bad people. This means that she never fulfills the intention of her case which is to save lives.Second, cross apply my second contention which talks about how corrupt our government is and how little we're willing to do to actually solve the problem, and how even if we tried to solve it there will still be more loopholes to be abused. This means that her plan to give people food to save more lives won't actually work because our government is too corrupt to actually make it work, meaning we'll never actually see her impacts.Third, my third contention outweighs. Harming insurgent efforts to commit acts of terror outweigh attempts to feed people because it affects more than just our nations. Terrorism is a global impacts and the hunger problems of a nation don't affect a different nation. Fourth, her argument about how we waste so much food to make the profits not worth it makes no sense and has no warrant to it at all. Even if we're wasting that many tons of food, the fact that we have that much pure profit coming from the food industry means that economically it's totally worth it.Fifth, while in theory food security sounds really nice for the poor, it only helps the rich at the expense of those who depend on agricultural sales for a living. This means that her attempts to help the hungry don't actually help the hungry, but rather hurts the people producing our food, which only compounds the problems. Hendrix 2: "Urban bias - the tendency for governments in developing countries to be more responsive to the policy concerns and preferences of urbanites at the expense of rural dwellers - is well documented ... In all political systems, rulers risk removal from office by force or massive popular upheaval if serious urban grievances are not addressed ... Regardless of regime type, rulers face general incentives to invest in policies that disproportionately favor those segments of scoiety that pose the most threat and whose support is most necessary for regime survival: urban dwellers, the military and the upper and middle classes ... or these reasons, rulers have general incentives to subsidize urban food consumption at the expense of rural producers, and target interventions during food price spikes toward comparatively better-off segments of society. These interventions - such as general consumer subsidies, price controls, and export bans - harm rural incomes while doing little to target aid to those who are most food insecure." As such, I negate.