Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

Note: Whether I explicitly contend any specific points or not, if any case I've established beforehand speaks contrary to a case, its validity makes it plausible as a point of refutation.THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORKLet me once again refer back to the logical framework. In order to qualify as something, an item/idea must satisfy the set of conditions toward this qualification. Any member of this set can be possible/impossible. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the condition is relevant. That means that the condition can be impossible. Again, I'm not saying that it is, merely that it can be. And since the possibility of a condition (the "can" or "how-to" of a condition) is not relevant, as long as the logical framework holds true, CON's cases which touch on the realms of possibility and costs (consequences) are effectively devastated. Why?Possibility: again, since impossible conditions (i.e. omnipotence) are entirely feasible to its correlating qualification (i.e. Godhood), the belief that any impossible condition nullifies qualification must be false. Thus possibility isn't a relevant factor.Consequences: Allow me to explain the impact of my not having the burden to delivering the 'how-to' for ensuring food security. Consequences only appear if when we consider specific methods of implementation. However, there are an infinite number of possible methods, so no single consequence other than the one specified by the condition itself (food security ensured) can be necessarily attributed to the condition (ensuring food security). Any number of consequences not necessarily attributed to ensuring food security does not qualify as a relevant consequence. Ensuring food security and its consequences other than the one necessarily attached to it are mutually exclusive!Even if a condition is impossible, it's feasability is unaffected by its impossibility. Impossibility and relevancy in this case are mutually exclusive. Even if specific methods toward ensuring food security might yield specific consequences, these consequences aren't necessarily tied to ensuring food securityThis is a direct contradiction to CON's "ought implies can" argument. Even if I haven't directly address the points under the "ought implies can" argument, I've effectively refuted it via my counter-case. I'll leave it to the judges to gauge the effectiveness of my countercase. IS/OUGHT FALLACYMy opponent says that I commit the is/ought fallacy. I do not.Here is the statement I'm endorsing that is being questioned in is/ought form: ' A government is just so it ought to ensure food security to its citizens. 'The is/ought fallacy is, in short, when a moral obligation is made based on what is factually true. It is the fallacy of making a normative statement out of non-normative, amoral facts. However, o say that a government is just is, in itself, a normative statement. It is not a factual statement. Thus, the is/ought fallacy cannot possibly apply.The ought statement in this case necessarily implies qualification. It doesn't call for action. Even if a condition is already satisfied, it still qualifies as a condition. Even if God is already presumed to be omnipotent, omnipotence is still a necessary condition to being God.When we consider God, it is abundantly clear that God ought to be omnipotent. God should be omnipotent or He simply isn't God.The logical framework of this debate dictates that this is a case of condition and qualification and that the 'ought' in this case is used as a qualifier.CONCLUSIONCON's CaseAttainability simply is not relevant. The moral burden of the government may be huge, but it is what it is. This is an indirect refutation to my opponent's claims on the fairness of impossible moral obligations. Its irrelevancy alone completely negates its application in this case. None of my opponent's contentions hold since they fall outside the frame of this debate as per Post-hoc Musings.My CaseMy case is simple. 1. A government exists for a purpose. This is dropped. CON argues that purpose does not necessarily imply justness and uses the purpose of a hammer as an example, but he doesn't contend the statement itself.2. A government's purpose is to basically to ensure the peaceful livelihood of its people in the form of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" or utilitarian values. This value is dropped.3. Ensuring food security is necessary to the condition of Life. This is essentially dropped. CON goes on to basically argue that the consequences of ensuring food security is unjust, but these consequences aren't necessarily true or relevant to food security itself.4. A government which fulfills its purpose is just. CON argues that purpose does not imply justness. His hammer argument falls short since the hammer isn't conscious. He drops his hammer argument and thus this line of reasoning.. thus this is essentially conceded as per the most recent round.5. Thus a government which ensures food security of its citizens is just.CON argues against the arbitrary distinction to citizens, but drops this line of inquiry. While it's true that I've been operating under the assumption that ensuring food security to its citizens means to ensure it to all citizens, I've shown that even if this were impossible, as seems to be the impact of this part of my opponent's point, it is still a plausible condition to hold for the "just" qualification.Thus I affirm.I admit that this debate has beena bit lackluster. This is thanks, in large part, to my not partitioning as much time as I probably should have for a debate of this calibre. It's very obvious that bsh did a lot more research on his case than I did on mine. I thank him for his efforts:Thank you bsh for a wonderful debate.I'd also like to extend all the thanks made in the introductory rounds.I know it was tough and probably very boring (particularly my side), but really.. thanks for reading peeps! :)