Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

Thanks bsh.My opponent elicits several points which I will address.P1 - THe Purpose of Government[a]:CON: "Would not a "just" government then have a duty to help every person, regardless of the status of their citizenship?"No. Non-citizens of a government do not fall under the administrative jurisdiction of that government. Those not under the jurisdiction of the government who do not expect to follow the governments rules cannot expect to receive benefits from this same government. I believe a government should do what it can to influence/help what it can. It would be great if the world could merge all its governments into one to help the world's people as a whole, but this simply is not the case that we have in reality. [b]:CON's next point of address against my P1 states that purpose does not necessarily indicate moral obligation. I agree. Purpose does not necessarily indicate moral obligation. Moral obligation doesn't exist everywhere where purpose is concerned, but in the case of a conscious entity (which a hammer is not), purpose does necessarily denote moral obligation. A conscious entity's objective purpose is not to be distinguished from its moral obligations. Such an entity is acting in the right way when it does what it is made to do. Such an entity is acting morally when it does what it is made to do.CON states that a government is created by groups of constituent conscious entities and that this consciousness doesn't extend to qualifying the consciousness of the government. I assert the contrary. Government's should be considered conscious entities because it is created and run by conscious entities with an active purpose attached to it. When one makes statements expecting a government to do something, the entity that this expectation really extends to is the body of people who run the government. A government is synonymous to the people who run the government. The people, as a conscious body, constitute the administrative body that is the government.[c]:If I've read the initial sentence of this point correctly, CON asks why a government is obligatory or desirable. I do not believe that this is what CON is really asking since showing government to be obligatory isn't what this debate is about. So I'm going to go ahead and assume that the question my opponent is really posing is: "Why is any single tenet obligatory in a moral government?"In other words, why does any tenet I name necessary in order to qualify a government to being just?Basically, "why does ensuring food security qualify as a moral duty?" The answer lies in P2SP2. I've clearly established that a government's purpose and moral duties are indistinguishable. Thus any of a government's purpose must be synonymous to a government's duty. P2SP2 asserts that western utilitarian ideal is the preferred moral ideals and that, among these ideals (as per the U.S. Constitution - 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness") is that of Life. To this end, food security is a must.P2 - JusticeSP2. Meaning of JusticeWhile justice entails both fairness and/or morality as per definitions, in order for my opponent to refute via this point, he has to show that justice only applies to fairness. In the case we have here, a government's inherent moral duties denotes the morality side of the definition. Thus, prefer my interpretation over CON's.SP2. Government's Moral Duties[a]:I do not need to establish that America is a just government. I only need to show that the ideals toward which this particular government strives is just. Since these values are very utilitarian, my argument in this case basically is a clear case for utilitarian values. In order for my opponent to actually negate, he must negate utilitarian values as distinguished from utilitarian methodology.[b]:Whatever interpretations entail, the passage I cited is very clear cut. It isn't speaking in vague moral language. It isn't using imagery or metaphors. It very clearly states that Man should be guaranteed a set of purposes and that government is made for that purpose. The language isn't abstract. If my opponent cannot show that what I've stated here is false, then this point does not serve a valid negation.CON: "Pro is creating a dilemma whereby governments must occasionally act unfairly and unjustly towards some in order to fulfill their moral duties." 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. The goal is inherently just and is thus something toward which a government should strive for. LogicHere is the framework within which this debate falls:DEFINITIONSGovernment = GJust = JEnsure Food Security = ASet of conditions necessary for a government to be considered just = S = {A,B,...,Z}STATEMENTS[a] G = J if and only if the set S is true.[b] If any single element of S is false, then S is false.[c] if S is false, then G is not J.[d] If A is false, then S is false.[e] Therefore if A is false, G is not J.[a] - a tautology. In order for a government to be considered just, it must satisfy the conditions that are needed for a government to be considered just.[b] - by definition, S is true only if all elements of S is true. If any single element in S is not true, then S cannot be true.[c] - necessarily follows from [a].[d] - necessarily follows from [b][e] - if A is false, S is false. If S is false, by [a], G = J is false.The definition of S is the only point of contention relevantly covered in this debate. CON argues that S is a null set, that a government cannot be just (nor can it be unjust - it is amoral). CON has also been contending whether A is an element of S, which makes sense with CON's basically arguing that S only consists of Ø. I argue the contrary. That S is not Ø and that A is an element of S.Every other point past this point cannot be negated. Any point outside of the logical framework is irrelevant to this debate. How S is to be fulfilled falls outside of the logical framework. It is thus irrelevant. Since A is an element in S, how A is also irrelevant by extension. All my opponent's musings on hypothetical costs of A (i.e. defunding things, genocide(?), etc.) fall outside the logical framework. They do not affect the logical framework and thus they are irrelevant. Even if A is impossible, as long as it is a valid element within S, the condition of S is perfectly valid.Eliciting an old example: Even if omnipotence is impossible, it is a valid condition to being God. Thus the set of conditions in order to qualify as God, even if impossible, is valid.Even if ensuring food security is impossible, such considerations of what is or is not possible is not relevant to the logical framework of this debate. This is why every negative contention my opponent has made does not actually have anything to do with this debate.I can't hammer htis home any clearer: "[G]iven 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, I continue to reject the burden that my opponent is trying to slate onto my back. It is not essential, not even relevant, for me to show a perfect or good way to achieve the goal. Such a method is assumed to exist. I only need to establish value in the goal itself. This I have done.