I affirm the resolution, “Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.” To clarify the debate, I provide the following definitions:
Ought implies an http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought used to express obligation.
Jane Straus defines ensure as
(Straus, Jane [author of the Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation]. Grammar Book.)
Ensure is to do or have what is necessary for success.
The United Nations defines food security as
(United Nations. 1975. Report of the World Food Conference, Rome 5-16. November 1974. New York) availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices
Prefer definition from the United Nations because different authors have differing conceptions of what food security entails and only an international organization such as the United Nations that tackles issues of food security every day can create a coherent definition that everyone can use.
Observation 1: CHSSA rules state that there are no counterplans allowed in Lincoln-Douglas.
(“ARTICLE XI: The State Tournament - Debate Rules.” http://www.cahssa.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/11BYLawsDebateRulesRev_1_2015.41214751.pdf)
A. Lincoln-Douglas Debate : Value Debate – No Plan Permitted. No plan may be presented by either debater in the round. A plan is defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation.
There are two implications:
1) I will not defend any specific mechanism to ensure food security but simply defend that the principle of food security is good. This also means disadvantages to how I ensure food security do not link into the affirmative case.
2) I do not need to defend questions of implementation or solvency since that is only pertaining to plans.
I value justice since the resolution questions what a government ought to do to become just or remain just.
President Obama clarifies that: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/05/01/The-Presidents-Remarks-on-Justice-Souter I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
Governments are equally obligated to every citizen. No one citizen is more important than the other in the eyes of the government, and this equality requires a consequential approach to policymaking. Philosopher David Cummiskey explains that:
Cummiskey, David. Kantian Consequentialism. Published by Oxford University Press. 1996. (p.142).
If I sacrifice some for the sake of others, I do not use them arbitrarily, and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have “dignity, that is, an unconditional and incomparable worth” that transcends any market value (GMM 436), but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7). The concept of the end-in-itself thus does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others. If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration dictates that one may sacrifice some to save many.
Government policies inevitable involve rights tradeoffs, and the only way to resolve these tradeoffs is through utilitarianism
Professor Gary Woller explains [BYU Prof., “An Overview by Gary Woller”, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10]
Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources, such that one group's gains must come at another group's ex- pense. Consequently, public policies in a democracy must be justified to the public, and especially to those who pay the costs of those policies. Such [but]
