Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

Thanks again to Beginner for his arguments! I apologize in advance for any errors caused by C/Ping from word.FRAMEWORKObservation One: TermsSince we're allowed to clarify what "justness" is to us, and to add necessary or useful non-resolutional definitions, I will offer two quick definitions:Justice - he quality of being just, impartial, or fairJust - acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or goodObservation Two: "Ought" Implies "Can""Ought" implies "can" for three reasons:1. It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. It is wrong to impose moral duties on an agent that said agent cannot possibly meet, because that agent would be condemned as immoral--blamed--through no fault of its own. For instance, it cannot be a moral obligation for me to eat copious amounts of arsenic and live, simply because I could never attain that standard. Therefore, I am doomed to failure and to immorality (because I fail to do what is morally required of me). That is inherently unfair.2. If obligations were not achievable, agents would waste resources attempting to meet the burden imposed on them. It is therefore better to recognize attainable objectives in order to maximize resources and benefits.3. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed." [1] So, because I cannot reasonably be blamed if I fail to survive after eating large amounts of arsenic, the obligation fails to achieve its purpose, which is to delineate good from bad, blameworthy from praiseworthy. The obligations themselves are rendered meaningless.Observation Three: Ensuring Food SecurityWhat does it mean to ensure food security? If we look to the definitions given in R1, to "ensure" means to to "absolutely secure, provide, or obtain" something. "Food security" is also applied to "all" not just "some" citizens. Therefore, to ensure food security is to unconditionally and totally obtain reliable supplies of affordable and nutritious food that is accessible to and sufficient for every single citizen. When taken in tandem with OB2, this means that Pro MUST show solvency (i.e. that he can tangibly implement food security as defined), or he cannot meet his burden in the debate.ARGUMENTSMy line of argumentation is simple: that no government can ensure food security, and so Pro cannot affirm the resolution. Contention One: Biodiversity issues make guarantees of food security impossibleSub-point A: Reductions in biodiversity are current and significant"[B]iodiversity resources are being lost at an accelerating rate that may cause the disappearance by 2025 of one-quarter of all the species now existing...Even if the evolutionary process that creates diversity continued at rates comparable to those in the geologic past, it would take tens of millions of years for today"s level of diversity, once seriously depleted, to be restored." [2] "The loss of local species...results in irreversible loss of the genetic diversity they contain, known as genetic erosion." [3]Sub-point B: Loss of biodiversity jeopardizes food security"[Genetic erosion] has dangerously shrunk the genetic pool...for natural selection, and for...breeders, and has consequently increased the vulnerability of agricultural crops to sudden changes in climate, and to the appearance of new pests and diseases...For example, in the United States in 1970, [a fungus] destroyed more than half the standing maize crop...grown from seeds that have a narrow genetic base and are susceptible to this disease." [3] "The current wholesale destruction of populations and species of wild plants...[is] foreclosing the potential for developing new food sources," because fewer plants can be explored for their agricultural viability. [2]Contention Two: Disease makes ensuring food security impossibleSub-point A: Disease prevents humans from cultivating"Diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS not only reduce the man-hours available to agriculture and household food acquisition, but also increase the burden of a household in acquiring food." [4]Sub-point B: Disease can destroy crops and livestock"Catastrophic plant disease exacerbates the current deficit of food supply...Plant pathogens are difficult to control because their populations are variable in time, space, and genotype. Most insidiously, they evolve, often overcoming the resistance that may have been the hard-won achievement of the plant breeder." [5] Even where genetic diversity exists, virulent illnesses in both animals and plants can significantly harm populations.Contention Three: Climate change endangers food security"[T]he UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change concluded that climate change was already having effects...The report [was the result of] a three year joint effort by more than 300 scientists...[and] said climate change had already cut into the global food supply. Global crop yields were beginning to decline...raising doubts as to whether production could keep up with population growth...[C]limate change could lead to dramatic drops in global wheat [and maize] production." [6] The report added that the effects of climate change were irreversible: "The report said some impacts of climate change will "continue for centuries," even if all emissions from fossil-fuel burning were to stop." [7]Contention Four: Sociopolitical barriers stymie food securitySub-point A: Agro-terrorism impedes food security"Kenya's Mau Mau used the African milk bush to poison cattle. In 1978, the Arab Revolutionary Council poisoned Israeli orange crops with mercury...In 1997, Israeli settlers used pesticides to destroy 17,000 metric tonnes of Palestinian grapevines...[F]ood chains have so many points of vulnerability; [P]otential threats to them can include anything from the sabotage of open field crops and water pipes to deliberate contamination...of food reserves." [8]Sub-point B: Lack of infrastructure is problematic"Limited rural development [is] a primary factor aggravating food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the population, as well as the majority of the poor, lives in the rural areas...Weak rural infrastructure...limit[s] the potential for agricultural development and opportunities for nonfarm income." [9]Sub-point C: Wars jeopardize food security"Violent conflict is an important factor behind high food prices and severe food insecurity. Conflict often affects the ability to produce, trade and access food...Conflict typically brings increased military spending...which crowds out other social expenditures, contributing to food security and child hunger"In Mali, where conflict has disrupted market access, coarse grain prices increased sharply by 80-100 percent above average from late 2011 onwards in many markets." [10]Underview: Too Many ThreatsThere are just too many threats, many of which are unforseeable or have yet to manifest, that could potentially stymie efforts to ensure food security, for food security to ever be solvable. Even if Pro can address the specific solvency issues I mention, it is still not possible for him to predict and prevent every possible thing that could prevent food security from being ensured. Thus, Pro cannot affirm.OFF-CASESecuritizing food is inherently Bad1. It increases the risk of conflict"[I]t allows states to utilize security--and military resources to compete over scarce resources such as agricultural land, fresh water, fertilizers and fish stocks--increasing the risk for conflict." [11]2. It leads to a bloating of government authority"[G]overnment acknowledgment of shortfalls in centrally-led food and agriculture 'defense' may be telling. Such shortfalls underscore not just administrative inadequacies, but real challenges of centralization and scale as responses to food security risks...[C]entralization, simplification and resource intensity of the prevailing U.S. food system [are] inimical to a true...security." [12] Decentralization is actually good for the economy, according to EU comparative studies [13] and centralization risks a transition to authoritarianism.2. It's Neo-Colonial"[C]ountries from Saudi Arabia to China plan to lease vast tracts of land in Africa and Asia to grow crops and ship them back to their markets. 'The risk is of creating a neo-colonial pact for the provision of non-value-added raw materials...and unacceptable work conditions for agricultural workers'…Some negotiations have led to unequal international relations.'" [14]SOURCES1 - http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...2 - Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily, “Food Security, Population, and Environment,” Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1993). 3 - http://www.farmersrights.org...4 - http://www.un.org...5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6 - http://www.theguardian.com...7 - http://www.washingtonpost.com...8 - https://www.lloyds.com...9 - http://www.gao.gov...10 - http://ucanr.edu...11 - http://www.thebrokeronline.eu...12 - http://www.sciencedirect.com...13 - https://euobserver.com...14 - http://www.ft.com...Thus, I negate! Over to Pro...