This House would limit the amount of food aid that developed nations can freely provide.

More than 1 billion people are suffering from hunger. [1] And if we stop providing food aid, that number will go up. Pro says we not only have a moral obligation to let these people starve to death, we also have a moral obligation to destroy anyone who tries to aid them (i.e. "self-sacrificial nations"). In effect, Pro advocates destroying China, India, and every developed country. About 1 billion people live in developed countries, and another 2 billion live in China/India. [2] Putting all this together, Pro advocates a global holocaust of somewhere between 3 and 4 billion people. That's around 1/2 our population, including most of our scientists, engineers, doctors, philosophers, writers, farmers, and so on. This position is absurd. How will Pro accomplish this global holocaust? How much will it cost? How will Pro avoid a nuclear holocast that wipes out everyone? If Pro is successful, who will benefit? How will they benefit? Will those benefits outweigh the harms? Pro's plan is incredibly vague, leaving a host of unanswered questions in its wake. In fact, Pro hasn't even identified a single, concrete benefit to his plan. Of course, Pro cites Hitler as an authority. Perhaps Pro intends to follow in Hitler's footsteps. I have no doubt that Hitler knew a thing or three about performing a global holocaust. But citing Hitler just emphasizes the moral vacuity of Pro's position. And it also puts the harms into perspective: the Nazi holocaust will pale in comparison with Pro's global holocaust.Pro's argument itself is incoherent. If what matters is strength, why limit people? Why deprive anyone the right to provide food aid? Besides, how would a prohibition on food aid even work in Pro's world? If the strongest person wants to provide food aid, how will Pro stop her? If she thinks giving food aid will make her stronger, who is Pro to challenge her? If might makes right, she decides what is right, not Pro. The might-makes-right principle means morality shifts depending on who, at any given point, is the strongest person. If might makes right, anything is permissible as long as you can justify it with strength. Thus, Pro's might-makes-right principle is inconsistent with Pro's categorical prohibition on food aid. In fact, developed countries in a position to provide food aid are already the strongest, so why limit their powers?Why is anyone obligated to destroy the weak? Pro offers no answer. And Pro offers no answer because under his framework, no answer exists. Strength itself determines what is permissible. As such, the entirety of Pro's argument boils down to nothing more than bigotry, much like Hitler's argument for exterminating the Jews. I begin with a different set of assumptions. I assume that death from lack of food is bad. I assume that exterminating 1/2 our population based on bigotry is bad. At bottom, these moral intuitions are based on the idea that human life is a basic good worth preserving. To be sure, I can't prove these moral intuitions by reference to logical syllogism. Rather, I can only point to our shared practical human experiences. I point to the way we respect persons and things because of what they are, not because of what they can do for us. I point to our political and legal systems premised on the notion that human life is a basic good. I point to the way we honor family and friends, or works of nature or art, not out of self-interest, but out of respect for their inherent value. Killing 3 to 4 billion people with the sole purpose of ending food aid is absurd, and it completely violates an understanding of human life as a basic good. To win this debate, I only need to show that food aid is morally permissible. As long as food aid is permissible, there's no basis for prohibiting it. Under Pro's might-makes-right framework, providing food aid is permissible, because strength itself determines what is permissible. Under my framework, in which human life is a basic good, providing food aid is permissible because it helps save people from starving to death. You can vote Con under either framework. But you should also vote Con because it means 3 to 4 billion people survive, including our brightest scientists, thinkers, and farmers. The infrastructure of our society would crumble under Pro's plan. That alone is reason to vote Con. But remember, even under Pro's framework, I win the debate, because food aid is still permissible.[1] http://www.wfp.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...