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

Pro argues that the so-called strong "should" destroy all developed nations, which in turn "will" limit the amount of food aid they can provide. To make this argument, Pro must prove two things: (1) that the strong "should" destroy developed nations, and (2) that Pro's plan "will" actually limit the ability of developed nations to provide food aid. Notably, proving (1) doesn't prove (2), because (1) is an "ought" issue while (2) is an "is" issue. Showing that something "ought" to be the case says nothing about what actually "is" the case. Thus, Pro must prove both points independently to affirm the resolution. The "is" part of the debate is just as important as the "ought" part, because it's the only link between Pro's plan and the resolution. Why exterminate the weak? Pro's answer is incoherent. Pro asserts that "no moral system has value if it can be freely ignored. " If Pro's assertion is correct, his entire framework crumbles, because any moral system can be ignored. Anyone can ignore Pro's might-makes-right framework, and anyone can ignore Pro's call for a global holocaust. As such, Pro's system itself has no value. In fact, I have spent the entirety of my life ignoring Pro's framework and call to a global holocaust, with no consequence to anyone. Pro defines the strong as those who "set their own values unrestrained by others (for the strong are those that overcome). " And Pro says the strong are already at the peak of their power ("What can benefit a being who is already at the peak of their potential? "). If so, the strong in particualar are free to ignore any moral system, including Pro's might-makes-right framework. And again, if might makes right, the strong decide what is right, not Pro. Either way, Pro's argument is incoherent, because it rests on a moral system that has no value or impact under Pro's reasoning. Pro says the weak are a burden that "degrade the status of the strong, so they must be removed. " But why are the weak a burden? How do the weak degrade the status of the strong? What is the specific harm caused by leaving the weak alive? Why is extermination the only option? Why can't the strong just ignore the weak? Pro offers no answers or substantiation for his assertion. And not only is Pro's assertion unsubstantiated, it's incoherent: to say the weak degrade the strong makes no sense under Pro's definition of the strong. To mitigate the impact of killing scientists, Pro says nothing benefits the strong because by definition they're already at the peak of their power. But if that's so, why should the strong pursue Pro's plan? If the strong don't benefit, why should they risk death, and waste resources, to exterminate the weak? Pro offers no answer. Exterminating the weak has no benefit, so there's no reason to pursue Pro's plan. Will Pro's plan limit food aid? When you argue an "is" issue, you need to show probability, not just possibility. So, Pro must show his plan is "more likely than not" to limit the ability of developed nations to provide food aid. This means at least 51% probability of success. Pro concedes that his plan is practically impossible (i. e. it has an astronomically low chance of success). That alone is reason to vote Con. Pro says I must show the status quo is better than a world where his plan fails. But that intrudes on Con ground. If Pro's plan fails, developed nations can still provide food aid, and if developed nations can still provide food aid, I win the debate, not Pro. Don't let Pro intrude on my grounds for argument. Remember, the resolution is about food aid; don't let Pro change the agreed-upon resolution. That said, even if you buy Pro's argument, I still win, because I showed the status quo is preferable to a world where Pro's plan fails. In the status quo, the strong survive, no resources are wasted, everyone is better off. In a world where Pro's plan fails, the strong die, resources are wasted, and developed countries might even have greater incentives to provide food aid to countries harmed by Pro's plan. AltruismPro misrepresents my argument in R3. I explicitly challenged Pro's assertions about altruism (Pro wrongly claims they went unchallenged). I argued that being simultaneously strong and altruistic is not only possible but also necessary, and to prove the point, I cited evidence showing that altruism is necessary to human survival. [4] In other words, anyone who is alive is altruistic or they'd be dead. Pro's so-called strong are alive, so they too must be altruistic. Pro drops that argument entirely. Even if the strong cannot be altruistic (the only way you'd accept that is if you prefer Pro's bare assertion to my dropped evidence showing otherwise), there's still no reason to categorically prohibit food aid. Under Pro's framework and definitions, the strong decide what is prohibited, not Pro, and what the strong decide shifts based on who at any given moment is strong. Don't let Pro dictate what the strong prohibit; doing so is inconsistent with his might-makes-right framework under which nothing is categorically prohibited. And remember, Pro says the strong cannot be limited without contradiction; hold Pro to that. FrameworkPro continues to mistake the nature of moral reasoning. Per Aristotle, moral truths are derived through practical human experience and observations of human nature. I made numerous empirical observations showing that humans instinctively protect life. Pro never disputes these observations. And these observations show that human life is inherently valuable. In contrast, Pro offers no justification for his moral framework. Pro offers no empirical observations, no undisputed premises, nothing. In deciding which framework to apply, prefer mine because it's based in practical human experience, empirical observations, and common sense, whereas Pro's is based on nothing. You can also prefer my framework because it leads to better results: 4 billion people alive instead of dead. Pro admits that I win the debate under my moral framework. If you can accept that human life is valuable, vote Con. But even under Pro's framework, I still win, because a global holocaust of 4 billion people isn't even justified under Pro's framework. Even if might makes right, that still says nothing about whether a global holocaust of 4 billion people is right or wrong. If strength determines what is right, Pro still cannot show that exterminating 4 billion people is a necessary result. ConclusionI've given you multiple reasons to vote Con. You can vote Con because Pro failed to uphold his proof burdens. Pro needed to show that the so-called strong should destroy all developed nations, and Pro needed to show his plan will limit the ability of developed nations to provide food aid. Neither proof burden was satisfied. You can also vote Con because Pro's plan is vague, incoherent, and absurd. You can vote Con because Pro's plan entails a global holocaust of 4 billion people. You can vote Con under my moral framework. Or you can vote Con under Pro's framework. Either way, you can vote Con because exterminating the weak gives no benefit to the strong. And you can vote Con because Pro's plan will likely fail. Remember, Pro has the burden of proof. That means it's Pro's burden to make offensive arguments. As Con, I only need to negate his arguments. In this debate, the task is easy, because I only need to point out the fact that Pro's entire argument lacks any substantiation or justification. Pro offers no empirical observations. His argument is completely untethered from reality. Instead, everything he says is a bare assertion. And bare assertions, according to Pro himself, are not enough to meet a proof burden.