Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

Many thanks to bsh!OV - The Burdens to Showing QualificationCON's second observation states that "ought" implies "can" which directly contradicts the part in my posthoc musings which states that I, PRO, do not need to provide the method by which the government should ensure food security for its citizens. The rationale is simple. The case in question here pertains very specifically to a necessary condition for a qualification. As with any condition-to-qualification correlation, the ability to satisfy the condition is actually irrelevant to the necessity of this condition toward that qualification. For example, in order to be bald, one ought to be hairless on the head. In order for one to be a female, one ought to have a vagina. In order for one to be naked, one ought not to be wearing any clothes. In order for something to be omnipotent, it ought to be able to transcend space and time among other things. In order for a person to be telepathic, that person ought to be able to read minds. In order for a government to be considered just, it ought to ensure food security to its citizens.Notice that some of the sets of qualifications and conditions that I've provided above are impossible. It is impossible to either be omnipotent or be able to satisfy the condition of being able to transcend space and time. Yet the condition of being able to transcend space and time is nonetheless valid toward something's qualifying for omnipotence. Similarly, the condition of ensuring food security is valid toward a government's qualifying to being just.Fairness in terms of a condition-to-qualification correlation is irrelevant.Thus I reject the burden of giving a method for a government to ensure food security.OV Musings - Irrelevant Filler ThoughtsA condition's impossibility necessarily makes the qualification impossible. Thus, if a qualification is impossible, then it is implied that the condition is also impossible. Since the condition of ensuring food security isn't a logical contradiction, I assert that the condition of ensuring food security is possible given that we have an infinite set of possible solutions to choose from. We may not have yet found out how to ensure food security, but as long as it is possible, governments ought to divert resources to at least attempt to provide food security. What resource and how much of it to divert is up to individual government's discretion. Even though a number of governments are still unable to ensure food security, I assert that if we at least try, it is likely that we'd get there eventually.Thus I feel (and hopefully have shown) that this debate is about whether or not the goal of ensuring food security is just. I could technically argue that there is no such thing as a just government. That for a government to be just is impossible. If I were to make that line of argument, I would say that a government can seek to be just and that a good government only has to be one that attempts at satisfying the conditions to being just. A good government isn't necessarily a just government, but that is neither here nor there.The Implications of OVI hesitate to reject a so many of my opponent's contentions with just a single thought made during posthoc musings, but the negation is what it is. Any case CON's whose weight lies in touting the costs of or denying the possibliity of ensuring food security is directly refuted by the OV's conclusion. All I have to do is show that a government's condition of ensuring food security is relevant to its qualifications of being just. How to ensure food security is not my burden to take.Again, given that the government knows how to provide food security to its citizens without incurring general net losses, a government ought to provide food security for its citizens in order to qualify as just.Thus PRO's first, second and fourth contention, which are based on impossibility and barriers to ensuring food security, fail. PRO's third contention pertains to a possible cost of ensuring food security. It also fails. Thus the underview of all four contentions is effectively refuted.Response to the OffcasePRO's offcase serves a legitimate point of contention with my case. Namely, it notes that securitizing food is inherently bad. PRO supports the statement of the offcase with the potential consequences of specific actions. However, PRO does not show that the actions, such as centralization, are necessarily required in order to ensure food security. Neither neo-colonialist nor competitive motions have been show to be inherently correlated with ensuring food security. In any case, all three points supporting this offcase depend upon some assumed methodology. The first assumes a competition for scarce resources (the world produces enough food to feed everyone[1] so the resources cited here aren't actually the issue). The second cites a source which asserts and assumes centralization. The third cites a method tried by the chinese. Since the method toward ensuring food security isn't relevant as noted by the OV, all three points fall off the case anyway.Source1 - http://www.worldhunger.org...