Food Security

Thanks again to Romanii for this debate. I will now address Con's case and forfeit, and briefly summarize the debate.CON's CASEI would like for the judges to not give Romanii an automatic loss for his forfeit; I hold out hope that he may yet return to post a final round. In the event that he does return, however, the structure of the debate prohibits him from mounting any sort of defense of his case, so, at this point, his case is defeated due to the fact that he dropped every objection to it that I raised as a result of his forfeit.VOTING ISSUESVI1. The Non-aggression PrincipleRomanii's case and the non-aggression principle have been taken out. Judges can cleanly extend all of my objections to that line of argumentation. This means that Romanii can only win if his turn is successful. It also means that judges must prefer my framework (Capabilities Theory) since the only alternative presented in the debate (NAP) is no longer viable.VI2. My Case ArgumentsMy three contentions were dropped and extended. Thus, in any calculation of the benefits of food security vs. the costs, I am winning that food security saves lives, improves health, and betters standards of living by reducing starvation and malnutrition, reducing conflict, and improving psychological wellness.VI3. ApplicabilityCon does absolutely nothing to justify why the U.S. should be used as a case study or to explain why it is a good model to analyze. Moreover, the U.S. is clearly not representative of all or most nations on Earth. Furthermore, the hypothetical nature of a "just government" prevents us from talking about the specific economic points Romanii discusses; instead we should be focused on broad issues. Finally, Con attacks welfare, but he attacks specific kinds and specific amounts of welfare which I do not necessarily have to defend. Thus, a lot of Con's data is simply not applicable to this debate or to my case, and should therefore be rejected.V14. DependencyCon's arguments about dependency fail. Firstly, they fail because I do not have to defend welfare handouts of the kind Con is critiquing. Second, they fail because more recent, more global studies support the notion that FS doesn't lead to dependency. Thirdly, there are unique damages to food insecurity (e.g. malnutrition) that outweigh the concerns of dependency.VI5. EmploymentCon's arguments about employment fail. Firstly, they fail because they are constructed on a bunch of tenuous assumptions that may never be realized. Secondly, they fail because tax cuts empirically do not increase growth and because companies (even with low real tax rates and stupendous profits) aren't employing people. Thirdly, the fail because FS isn't as nearly as much of a financial burden as Con makes it out to be, and because FS gives economic returns that more than make up for the cost. Fourthly, they fail because Con's system will always have hungry, starving people. Only my world can guarantee otherwise.VI6. CharityCon's arguments about charity fail. Firstly, they fail because charity leads to the very kind of dependence Con harps about. If you believe that dependence is bad, you must also therefore believe that charity is bad. Secondly, Con talks about how welfare crowds out donors, mentioning the U.S. and Israel as examples; however, the high rates of donation in those countries may be better explained by their religiosity rather than their low welfare benefits. Thirdly, they fail because people are not necessarily going to donate to the most effective charities, and so even an increase in charity spending cannot be shown to actually benefit needy groups. Fourthly, they fail because governments have the infrastructure in place to reach large populations while charities don't. Fifthly, they fail because Con's study saying that charities were more efficient/effective than government only talked about overheads, and not about how the money was actually used; thus, there is no evidence that charities are actually better at helping people than the government.SummaryUnder a CapAp approach, saving lives and preserving health are two of the most essential fundamental needs that a person must have in order to have a minimally good life. Even if FS isn't the best thing ever, it--at the very least--ensures that all people have access to these essential goods. Con cannot say the same about his system. Moreover, Con's arguments are cleanly taken out, and so he has no link to my framework, whereas I do, coming off of my dropped contentions. Thus, I ask for a Pro vote. Thank you!============If Con does post in the last round, please don't allow him to make any new arguments or to introduce evidence that makes a new argument. Thank you!