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

The burden of proof in this debate is not shared. The burden is on Pro because Pro is the instigator, he advocates a change in the status quo, he advocates a controversial position that challenges our fundamental beliefs, and he advocates the use of force (i.e. to prohibit food aid).What is Pro's burden? Pro must prove that might-makes-right is the correct moral framework. Pro must prove that the strong are morally obligated to exterminate the weak. Pro must prove that a global holocaust of 4 billion people, including most of our scientists, thinkers, and farmers, is both possible and net beneficial to society (i.e. Pro must prove that destroying China, India, and every developed country is net beneficial to society). Pro must prove that limiting the strong by prohibiting food aid is both possible and morally required. Pro must prove that prohibiting food aid is consistent with his might-makes-right framework. Unless Pro meets these burdens, Pro cannot win this debate. Furthermore, to meet these burdens, Pro must justify each point through more than bare assertions. This is the standard that Pro holds me to, so he too much be held to that standard. At this point, Pro has failed to meet his proof burdens. Pro asserts his might-makes-right and exterminate-the-weak framework without offering any substantiation or justification for that framework. In contrast, I grounded my human-life-is-inherently-valuable framework on practical human experience. This is precisely how Aristotle reasoned in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argued not from logical constructs or by reference to some hypothetical world. Instead, Aristotle argued from life's experiences and observations of human nature.That human life has inherent value is suggested by the fact that countless people every day protect human life (their own or another's) without thinking about any good beyond life itself. We protect life instinctively in everything from our homicide laws to our traffic laws to our latest government programs for health care. This is why the Declaration of Independence declares it "self-evident" that "all men [and women] are created equal" and enjoy "certain unalienable Rights," and "that among these are Life." [3]To the extent that Pro says my framework is grounded in "acceptance," Pro simply mistakes the nature of moral reasoning itself. Per Aristotle, all moral truths are derived through practical human experience. That is the basis of my framework, not "acceptance." Under my framework, Pro loses this debate outright, because his plan leads to a global holocaust of 4 billion people.Even under Pro's framework, Pro still loses the debate, because Pro's plan kills our best scientists, thinkers, and artists. I would argue these scientists and thinkers are a potential source of new technologies that increase strength far beyond anything the strong gain from killing the weak. In particular, biotechnologies, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence will exponentially increase the strong's power. Whatever the strong may gain from exterminating the weak (this supposed benefit is still completely vague and undefined) simply cannot outweigh the exponential gains in power that the strong can acquire from our best scientists and thinkers.But more to the point, all this is irrelevant, because Pro's plan will fail. Pro even admits his plan will probably fail. The likely outcome is that the so-called strong die in their attempts to exterminate 4 billion people. They'll either die through a nuclear holocaust that wipes out everyone, or more likely, they'll simply be defeated by the joined forces of China, India, and every developed country. Pro says this is irrelevant. But feasibility/success is relevant because if Pro's plan fails, then China, India, and every developed country will continue providing food aid, negating the resolution. Pro's plan must succeed if Pro wants to prohibit food aid, so Pro cannot win the debate unless his plan succeeds. Furthermore, if failure is certain (and it is), the strong will be better off if they don't pursue a global holocaust, because they'll be alive instead of dead. So, the outcome is better for everyone if Pro's plan is not pursued. Therefore, under either Pro's framework or my framework, the status quo is preferable to Pro's plan.--Before concluding, let me briefly go through Pro's other failed proof burdens, for the sake of being thorough. Pro has failed to show that the strong must exterminate the weak. Why should they? Pro says because they must dominate the weak. Why is extermination necessary? Pro says because it is rightful order of things. But that isn't an answer. Why is domination of the weak the rightful order of things? Pro offers no answer. Pro's entire argument is empty and substanceless. These empty, bare assertions are not sufficient to meet his proof burden, especially for such a controversial position as a global holocaust of 4 billion people.Pro says we must prohibit food aid. But why prohibit the strong from doing anything? Pro says because being both strong and altruistic is impossible. I have two responses to that. First, Pro offers no evidence or substantiation for this assertion, so again, it's just a bare assertion with no proof or justification. In fact, empirical evidence shows that being strong involves altruism as a matter of evolution and natural selection. [4] The article I cite shows that altruism is so important that human beings would not survive without it. Second, even if being both strong and altruistic is impossible, why prohibit the strong from anything? That act of force is both unnecessary and itself impossible. Pro cannot prohibit the strong from doing anything, so his categorical prohibition on food aid is unenforceable and therefore irrelevant. And if the strong decide what is right, Pro cannot say whether food aid is morally permissible. Under Pro's framework, the strong decide, not Pro. I said this last round and Pro offered no response, so consider this point dropped, and extended.Finally, note that Pro's entire plan is inconsistent with his might-makes-right framework. Asserting a categorical prohibition on food aid is inconsistent with a might-makes-right framework because a might-makes-right framework is inconsistent with any categorical prohibitions. In such a system, right and wrong shift depending on what the strong decide at any given moment. When strength determines what is permissible, nothing may be prohibited categorically. That means morality depends on the specific circumstances; right and wrong are determined on a case-by-case basis. Pro advocates a complete prohibition on food aid, and the destruction of anyone who provides food aid, which simply doesn't square with his might-makes-right framework. Limiting the strong without justification simply has no purpose in Pro's system. Besides being unenforceable, if the strong never provide food aid because doing so is incompatible with strength, then a categorical prohibition itself is unnecessary. [3] http://www.archives.gov...[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com...