Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

For the sake of making it easier to read, I'll address your points with my rebuttal underneath each claim you stated in your last argument.I mean this in the nicest way, but I don't believe you have even looked up what food security even is."Governments should not be responsible to provide food for their citizens"This is irrelevant to the debate topic. Food Security is the state of having reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food. This has nothing to do with providing direct aid for citizens. "In response to Pros argument that Governments are "Morally obligated" to provide their citizens with food is like saying that you should always give the seagulls bread on the beach that are taking dives for your food."You appear to try to be making an argument against a claim that was never brought up on my side. The argument on my side is that governments should be "Morally Obligated to provide fundamental Food Security." You seemed to have twisted my words, using an analogy of giving seagulls bread to a statement you gave about "governments being "morally obligated to provide their citizens with food.'" This is besides the point of the debate, as it is only to debate about the availability of food to be morally obligated by the government."Point 1: By the government providing food for everyone in need of it people will learn to live off of that without trying to earn it for themselves...People need to learn to live without the government providing everything for them. In conclusion if you learn to live off the government, you will be less likely to improve your situation."No need to adress first part of your point-appears irrelevant to the true topic. Are you trying to say the government simply shouldn't have a role in ensuring food is available to it's citizens? If so, then assume all government programs like school lunches, food stamps, meals on wheels, and farming regulations were just stopped. No government regulated Imports or Exports on foods since the government supposedly shouldn't be allowed to insure food security. If you honestly believe food security shouldn't be obligated by the government, then please enjoy a society where agrigultral terriorism will soar, a rise in extreme poverty conditions due to minimum wage workers having no access to foods, and a rise of extreme obeisety and risk of heart attack due to the ill-regulations of food processing with cheap ingredients, and possibly illegal ones. This are just a few of the extreme issue we would face without government handled food security, so convince me otherwise."Point 2: Just in America there are approximately 610,000 homeless people. On average it costs $294 to feed 1 person per month. So, if the government provide food for every homeless person in America it would cost over 2.1 billion dollars per year! Also, the amount would never decrease because (see first point) they would get used to the situation they are in instead of try and improve."Okay, again. this point is irrelevant to the topic of FOOD SECURITY. I don't want to begin on another topic about spending, considering this is still not the point of the debate, but if you truly think that spending over 2.1 billion dollars is "too much" to insure every person in America can actually eat, then wouldn't you agree maybe cut ending $610.096 BILLION DOLLARS ON MILITARY would be perfectly fine to make sure every person can sleep a little better,especially since the next 10 countries that spend less than us combined are all allies? And okay, so the homeless rely on food. This isn't going to discourage them from getting jobs, that's just ignorant. THEY ARE STILL HOMELESS. Do you personally just believe every homeless person is just going to STOP looking for a job now that they are living off minimal food requirements? And what makes you think homeless people actually could even GET a job as of today? Isn't that why they are homeless, because they can't GET a job? This statement is just ignorant. "In closing no one should have to be hungry but the government should not have to pay to feed everyone. It would be too expensive and also would not motivate people to get jobs but discourage them from trying to get jobs because they don't need them to live."So 2.1 Billion is too expensive to make sure every human in America can make ends meet off LIFE, but god forbid anyone cut something from are 610.096 Billion dollars in spending. and your argument about homeless people basically going to stop looking for jobs because they can make minimum eating isn't even close to even arbitrary. Your entire argument stands invalid.