Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

So the roadmap is theory shell, overview to the NC, line-by-line of the NC, then AC extensions and voters if I have time. First, A. Interpretation – Ethical burdens imposed by a debater must be sufficient to win the debate. B. Violation - I do not win by turning skepticism (i.e. that moral statements aren’t false)C. Standards - 1. Reciprocity: NIBS grant unreciprocal options in favor of the negative, who can challenge any number of assumptions within the resolution, which is unfair since reciprocity ensures that both sides have an equal opportunity to win the ballot. And, I have no way to leverage turns against truth-statements, which skews my 1AR strat since I can’t weigh impacts and win but they can. Moreover, Necessary but insufficient burdens create a structural inequity in the round, because the negative wins the entire round if they win that one burden, while the affirmative has to win 100% defense on the burden to have a chance at winning. Reciprocity harms fairness because they grant the NEG a 2:1 advantage in the debate and I’m skewed in terms of winning the ballot. 2. Logical consistency: running different ethical theories allows them multiple contradictory ethical theories they can win off of. This skews fairness because I can’t engage in the 1AC without also contradicting myself. Also this is unfair because since they defend ethics can both be objective and subjective I can’t pick a coherent strategy against their case without contradicting my case. i.e concede subjectivity and goes for skep negates or answer subjectivity and then have to turn the objective ethics section. D. Vote them down. 1. Fairness is a voter because competitive debate mandates equal burdens. This means the function of the ballot is to vote for the better debater but that’s functionally impossible if one side is skewed. 2. Only voting on theory can give the aff an offensive route against their strategy. Otherwise, it would still function as an insufficient burden. Voting is also the only way to deter the unfair argument in the future; otherwise they’ll continue to run it to win the time tradeoff. 3. Theory is an issue of competing interpretations because reasonability invites judge intervention since any brightline would be arbitrary so it’s not what you do, it’s what you justify.Then, as an overview to the NC:Their entire case is in violation of the structure of the debate. Not only is his case posted external to the site, but it exceeds the 10,000 character limit assigned to the debate(1). This is blatantly unfair since it lets him say more and respond to more than I physically can, which gives him an unfair advantage in the debate. If we cut him off at the 10k character limit, he stops in the middle of his Council of Foreign Relations card at "techniques that result", so only allow him access to that text and nothing below it. Doing so would be inherently unfair against me for trying to follow the rules. So, let's talk about Skep now! Group all of his first contention together.First, there's absolutely no link between the resolution and morality. He makes the claim that the resolution questions the morality of just governments, but provides absolutely zero warrant to this. Secondly, his normative skepticism doesn't actually address the AC. The entirety of my framework addresses the resolution epistemically, which functions on an entirely different level of thought than normative. This means that even if you buy the NC, it isn't responsive to the AC.Third, the theory shell I read at the top of this round means you vote him down for running skep in the first place. Fourth, Skep is epistemologically bankrupt. Epistemology requires us to behave as if there were a risk of us being wrong. Thus skep is rejected because if true there is no down side but if wrong we allow for infinite moral violations. Sepielli (2): [as] imperfect beings … we must make our decisions under uncertainty. … I should perform the action with the highest expected value. … by multiplying the subjective probability that some … comparative is true by the value of that action if it is true, doing the same for all of the other … comparatives, and adding up the results. … suppose I am deciding between actions A and B. There’s some chance that A is better than B, and … [a] slightly greater chance that B is better than A. … also … if A is better than B, then A is saintly and B is abominable; but if B is better than A, then B is slightly nasty and A is merely okay. Despite the fact that my credence is higher that B is better than A, … I ought to do A instead, since A’s “normative upside” is so much higher than B’s, and its “normative downside” not nearly as low. Thus, we're obligated to view things in the light that the way we view things could be wrong. Skep precludes us from doing that since it says literally everything is subjective so who are we to say that something is right and wrong. Thus, it bites into the harms of Sepielli.Then, off of the Just Government criticisms:First, his definitional argument is literally bull. Theres's absolutely no warrant for the link between his definition and his argument that in order for a government to be just that 100% of their actions have to be fair and consistent with moral values. I argue that the definition implies that, on balance, a just government's actions should be fair and consistent with moral values.Second, arguing that just governments don't exist is nonsensical in terms of the resolution because the resolution assumes the existence of just governments. The resolution makes the assumption that just governments exists and then asks us the hypothetical of what ought they do, so denying just governments exist is pointless: it's a part of the resolution. Third, even if arguing that just governments don't exist is a decent idea, he's got no warrant for why just governments don't actually exist. His argument relies on an entirely abusive definitional argument that makes no sense just to prove that a government can't be just. But even if you buy that argument, he has no warrant for why the US isn't just under his abusive definitional argument. But even if I give him that the US isn't a just government, that doesn't mean there isn't a possible just government out there. It's just....not a good argument. Now, let's look at the aff:The only response that was made against the aff was that skep is true, so the aff collapses because morality sucks. I've already thuroughly responded to skep, so that leaves literally 100% of my case unresponded to. Extend out literally everything as clear and compelling offense to affirm off of.Conclusion:First, you affirm off of theory. Skep harms debate as an activity and it's a reason you should vote him down for using it.Second, even if you don't buy theory, I have other responses to skep, so it leaves him without any kind of argument against my case. Which leaves me an entirely unresponded to case, a fvcking entirely dropped case, to extend out as offense and a reason to affirm the resolution.Third, there's no reason to look to his presumption arguments because the debate is really clear.Sources:(1) - http://i.imgur.com...(2) - What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do, Andrew Sepielli, Rutgers – New Brunswick