Premier Debate Today- Ask the

Panel
http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/03/02/ask-the-panel-food-security/comment-page1/#comment-1846
Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.
To help you prepare for the years home stretch, our three panelists will help you
navigate the March-April topic by answering any question asked. For this edition, panelist
answers will be direct replies within the comment section. Here are the bios for our
three panelists:
Monica Amestoy
Monica debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Caada, CA. She helped start
the debate team and was the first person to attend TOC from her school. As a junior, she
reached octafinals of the NDCA championships. As a senior, she made it to quarterfinals
of the Victory Briefs Tournament, earned top speaker at the Cal Berkeley Invitational and
the Damien Invitational and reached bid rounds at Valley, Apple Valley, Alta, College
Prep, Stanford and Berkeley. Monica also competed at the Hockaday and Lexington
Round Robins. In college, she debates for the University of Utah where she has reached
three final rounds of NPDA style parli debate.
Bob Overing
Bob is an assistant coach for his alma mater Loyola High School in Los Angeles and
currently debates for the USC Trojan Debate Squad. As a competitor, Bob earned 11 TOC
bids in one season and took 1st or 2nd at Golden Desert, Harker, Meadows, Blake,
Stanford, and the TOC; in college, he cleared at CEDA and qualified to the NDT. He has
coached winners of Berkeley, CPS (twice), Kandi King, and USC as well as a TOC finalist
and quarterfinalist. His students have earned 32 TOC bids in the past two years.
Lawrence Zhou
Lawrence debated for Bartlesville HS in Oklahoma graduating in 2014. In high school, he
was a three-time state finalist and two-time state champion, placed 6th at the NFL
National Tournament his junior year, and was the NSDA National Champion his senior
year. He also qualified to the National Tournament all four years of high school in LD,
public forum, and congress. He now attends the University of Oklahoma where he is a
member of the OU Ethics Bowl Team and debates on the OU policy team.
Post your questions about the topic below!
Ask the Panel
28 COMMENTS
Darien March 2, 2015

11:53 pm

Do you think that this topic is very similar to the living wage topic in that theyre both
premised on the same thing? In your opinion, which frameworks will be frequently used?
Reply

bobovering March 5, 2015

10:54 pm

I think its similar to the living wage topic in that both are cases of assistance to those in
need, but there are some important differences:
1) Living wage is a requirement on employers, but ensuring food security is likely to
mean a government policy regarding food production or a more direct welfare policy
such as food stamps. This makes a difference for the types of counterplans the neg can
go for and NCs. For instance, an argument about state paternalism applies much more
on the March/April topic than living wage.
2) Food security is much more likely to have international effects since its an
internationally traded good. Food prices in different countries are interrelated, such that
U.S. policy, for instance, will have great impacts in other parts of the world. Living wage
is a more strictly domestic topic. This affects what impact scenarios are likely to be read.
3) I think March/April will be more impact-focused and less solvency-focused. Living wage
debates often turn on whether the living wage is effective at reducing poverty. I dont
think that same level of in-depth economic analysis will be played out on the March/April
topic. Given all the richness of the advantage and disadvantage ground relative to living
wage, I think more debaters will go that route.
Frameworks
1) Definitely consequentialist frameworks. No question there.
2) The aff might try some Kantian or Rawlsian frameworks to escape negative
disadvantages. The Kant aff would say that governments have an imperfect duty to
provide for their citizens. A Rawlsian aff would say we should care about the least welloff. That makes a lot of big-stick negative impacts irrelevant.
3) Negs will have to go for some type of autonomy or libertarian strategy if they want a
framework-heavy position.
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 10, 2015

8:44 pm

So, I dont think they are that similar. In addition to what Bob has mentioned, I think that
there is just a major difference in how they will be debated. The living wage topic had
strong philosophical and empirical clash rooted at the heart of the topic. This topic is
clearly extremely affirmative biased in terms of the literature, which is going to force
negatives to adopt positions that arent rooted at the heart of the topic. However, I see
that they do have some similarities. They are both about helping those in need, they
focus on what obligations the government has to its citizens, and they are a question of
whether or not the government should, in some way, interfere with the market.
As for frameworks, I think util will be the most common one by far. It gives affirmatives
access to tons of poverty and other advantage areas, and allows negatives to run their
crazy disadvantages. Negs will probably be libertarian. I also think negatives, even in
more traditional regions, will also adopt more critical leaning frameworks. A former
teammate of mine did very well in a traditional area running a negative argument about
how food security has historically led to the exploitation of lesser developed countries,
which is a soft critique of colonialism and capitalism.
Reply
Jalaj Sood March 2, 2015

11:57 pm

Is it extra or effects topical to specify a mechanism of achieving food security in the 1AC?
for example Governments will turn to GMOs for food security
Reply
bobovering March 7, 2015

7:40 pm

I wrote about this in the brief in the section called Aff Topicality I believe. If there were
more circuit-style tournaments on this topic, I would expect to see a lot of T debates on
the issue.
If those mechanisms arent topical, its because theyre effects topical. The neg could
argue that they lead to food security, but do not inherently guarantee it.
On the other hand, those mechanisms would be topical on a definition of ensure that
allows for government policies that increase food production. Search ensure AND food
security and see what comes up: Youll get a bunch of literature using the phrase
ensure food security in the context of all these various mechanisms, which you can use
to justify your plan.
Reply
anon March 3, 2015

1:25 am

what would be good lay negs on this topic? it seems near impossible to negate without
ks or other offs.
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 3, 2015

12:00 pm

To be completely honest, there arent many (or any at all). The first, and most obvious,
lay negative position would be some sort of libertarian argument. It could either be
phrased as the free market does it best or government intervention is immoral.
There are other variations of this type of argument and is probably the most stock
negative case on this topic. While not a great option for negatives, I think if negatives
also have great case answers and have this NC fairly well frontlined out, then it could
potentially be a solid lay strategy, especially if you spread the 1AR thin. The other thing
to remember about lay debate is that its often more about the presentation than the
content. While completely wild K ideas will probably not fly in a lay circuit (like dont read
D&G or anything like that), softer Ks phrased and presented properly can certainly work.
If affirmatives re-entrench the current food regime, which is currently capitalist, you can
write a negative case that is essentially a cap K, but phrase it so it sounds like a lay
negative case, and you might be able to get away with it. For example, instead of having
a role of the ballot that is like the role of the ballot is to reject capitalism, or something
like that, you could have a standard of protecting individual autonomy or something
like that and explain why capitalism has led to gross violations of individual autonomy,
such as taking away small farmers rights. Ive certainly run somewhat critical positions
in Oklahoma (among the layest of the lays) but phrased them to sound like traditional
cases and gotten away with it.
Reply
bobovering March 8, 2015

12:35 am

I like Lawrences idea of a soft K on the neg. Certainly interesting and can get you
impacts that outweigh a lot of the affs. An intuitive impact/ideology that judges can latch
onto seems helpful.
Another general thing you can do is try to stick the aff to specific examples that you can
refute. Creating an effective strawman is a good way to make a vague and general topic
more debateable, especially when you think your side is less persuasive on face. For
instance, Id try to pin down the aff to an example such as food stamps. Then, I could
read a paternalism/liberty-based negative about welfare. Alternatively, you could say the
aff is ag subsidies and then claim they interfere with the free market and crowd out small
farmers.
Reply
Monica Amestoy March 8, 2015

7:32 pm

I wouldnt be afraid to read a heavy DA and a short CP on this topic because I think its a
lot easier to find specific issues with the implementation of the aff rather than trying to
negate the resolution as a general principal. For example you could read a DA (and you
can obviously structure arguments differently depending on the judge is) about the
industrial farming that would be required to increase food production. I think a lot of
different kinds of judges would be down to hear reasons about why factory farming on a
mass scale would be bad. That paired with a community garden or urban farming
counter plan would be a solid NC strategy. Negs should really check out vertical
gardening and other types of CPs that can be implemented by communities and are
more efficient than the aff because it solves better for food desserts which will be a big
solvency deficit for the aff on this topic. I also think you could read a CRT (Critical Race
Theory) negative in front of most judges. I would check out Robert Bullard and Major
Carter. They both have stuff on food and environmental racism.
Reply
Mitch McConnell March 4, 2015

4:20 pm

How do you feel about the interpretation that affirming means creating a legally
enforceable right to food? The other possible interpretations are that any government
has the duty to guarantee that none of its citizens are food insecure, which seems
immediately false as per ought-implies-can, or else some sort of object-fiat which is
super vague and probably isnt grounded in any topic literature (I dont think writes
about how it would be good or bad for food to spring out of nowhere and distribute itself
to feed everyone).
Reply
bobovering March 8, 2015

12:53 am

I did see some of the lit on a legally enforceable right to food. Its probably too narrow
of an interp theres got to be more to this topic than just that one mechanism, right?
You could find some cards, but I think you lose on an overlimiting/ground argument.
Like I said above, ensure is the tricky part. Does that mean the aff isnt topical if it
doesnt provide food for every citizen? A lot of articles/books I saw used ensure in the
context of food security to mean an policies that increase food production. Does that

mean its the best interpretation? Maybe not, but its definitely better than the ones with
the radical fiat / ought-implies-can problems you cited.
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 10, 2015

8:52 pm

To further off of what Bob has said, I dont think the aff has to prove that EVERY citizen
gets food or else they arent topical. I dont really think thats how the word ensure is
used in common language. For example, if the statement was My mother ought to
ensure that I do not hurt myself and I accidently trip once and injure myself, I dont
think that renders the statement false. Yes, I hurt myself, but I dont think that it denies
that My mother ought to ensure that I do not hurt myself is false; at best it means my
mother failed to uphold that obligation in one instance. This is especially true of the
literature concerning food security. A lot of literature surrounding food security using the
word ensure doesnt use the word ensure as make sure no one ever is hungry, but
instead use it to describe policies that improve existing food policies. So I dont see why
the aff cant defend an interpretation that doesnt rely on a legally enforceable right to
food. That being said, a legally enforceable right to food has decent groundings in the
literature, especially those that argue for a right to food in the context of human rights.
Reply
Marie George March 12, 2015 10:52 pm
I am struggling to find good articles for my negative case. I also cant seem to pick a
good value or criterion. Do you guys have any ideas?
Reply
bobovering March 14, 2015

1:25 pm

Hi there. It is kind of tough to make a traditional negative case on this topic. I just
uploaded the .Doc version of the briefs on our camp site, so that will probably help.
Here are some ideas off the top of my head:
a) value: justice, criterion: equality and argue that ensuring food security privileges some
people over others (e.g. arguments that agricultural subsidies or other ag policies
disproportionately benefit people in the farming industry or that welfare policies like food
stamps benefit the poor more than others)
b) value: morality, criterion: utilitarianism and argue that ensuring food security actually
harms the poor through disincentives on lifting ones self out of poverty, dependency,
etc.
c) value: governmental obligations, criterion: maintaining a minarchist state and argue
that too much government intervention is an infringement on individuals political
autonomy. Ensuring food security is an example of such an intervention. Similarly, any
neg about the free market and autonomy would work.
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 14, 2015

8:51 pm

In terms of value and criterion, my coach always instructed us (in terms of traditional/lay
cases) to pick the criterion after youve decided what the thesis of your case is. It would
make no sense, for example, to have a criterion of utilitarianism/maximizing expected

well being if all of your offense is more about respecting individual rights than deciding a
body count. For this reason, I always (when writing lay case) picked the criterion only
after I had figured out what the offense was going to be. That way, you can better tailor
your criterion to suit the arguments at hand best. For example, say I originally wanted a
negative case that says that food security disrespects individual property rights and that
was going to be my criterion, but then I found out that my offense was more about
individual autonomy than individual property rights. By picking the criterion after youve
figured out what you want to say in the negative case as a whole, you can avoid these
problems and pick the best criterion for your case.
And all of Bobs suggestions would work well in traditional circuits if won well. Ill add one
of my own. Value: Morality. Criterion: Minimizing Exploitation (something along those
lines). All of the offense would be about how food security has led to larger countries
dominating smaller ones for food, and larger corporations exploiting small farmers for
increased agriculture.
Reply
a debater March 19, 2015

9:05 pm

Hi. For the aff case, would you recommend arguing implementation? For countries in
Africa or a country like North Korea, food security doesnt seem feasible. However,
leaving it as fiat would probably be misinterpreted by judges (The judges in my region
are very lay.)
My other idea was to define a just government as a government that actively protects
citizens, limiting the argument to countries with the financial resources to implement
food security (g-20 countries, etc.) Do you think this is a good idea?
Reply
a debater March 19, 2015

9:12 pm

I have the evidence to justify that a governments justness should be determined by its
overall action and not its morality, so that a government that doesnt protect its
citizens is unjust regardless of the reason, but Im not sure if a lay judge will buy this
point.
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 20, 2015

9:40 am

If you have mostly lay judges, I would not argue that specific countries ought to do
something. Something about specifying a particular country doesnt sit well with lay
judges. You should just claim to defend the resolution as a general principle or a broad
rule. So, no, for lay judges, I would not recommend arguing implementation. That being
said, pointing to specific examples is always persuasive and shows you know your stuff,
so dont be afraid to list off examples in CX. I would just not recommend defending
implementation in the way you suggest in the 1AC.
Reply
a debater March 20, 2015

9:12 pm

Thanks for responding. So does the aff case need to explain how food security would be
implemented at all?

Similarly, considering how hard lay neg arguments are for this topic, wouldnt an attack
on the feasibility of food security be the easiest position to defend for neg? Or would that
be non-topical if the aff doesnt bring up a plan?
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 23, 2015

10:00 pm

For lay judges, I dont really think so. Its more about the general principle/ideal. If you
have more advanced judges, you might want to since the ability of the aff to solve food
insecurity will be a more major point for more circuity judges.
I think negs should probably attack the ability of the aff to solve no matter what. Even if
they dont read a plan, you can make general claims about the aff being unable to solve.
Reply
LDLife March 20, 2015 9:04 am
Im in a grey sort of semi-progressive/semi-traditional circuit, and Im a novice. I know
the above answers have talked about neg positions, but I was trying to look for
something not repugnant to lay judges (eg. Nietzche, etc.) and being able to outweigh
affs util x million lives saved. Im currently running biodiversity>extinction (super
shaky) and corruption, but Im definitely considering adding one of those soft Ks.
Anything a bit harder (or progressive) you would recommend for a circuit like mine?
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 20, 2015

9:45 am

I am personally a huge fan of soft K negs on this topic, so thats still my suggestion.
Bobs ideas above were also great neg ideas for more traditional circuits, like the
libertarianism neg and some of the other ideas. If its a semi-progressive circuit, running
some of the arguments in the PDI evidence packet wouldnt be a bad idea at all. There
are a good amount of interesting negative arguments in there.
Reply
bhave is bae March 23, 2015 12:08 pm
Another interesting approach would be something like: The resolution says for their
citizens. Im not sure how much lit there is on this, but one could hypothetically argue
that notions of citizenship are racist, exclusionary, etc. You could also say that food
security should be for everyone, not just citizens-possible counterplan?
Reply
Lawrence Zhou March 23, 2015

10:02 pm

You might be able to win that the discourse of citizenship is bad, but it doesnt seem like
a food security for everyone counterplan would be competitive/legitimate because it
would be plan-plus, i.e. the entirety of the aff plan PLUS a plank about food security for
everyone.
Reply
afghanistan March 24, 2015 5:45 pm

Just curious, whats wrong with that? Is it like a PIC? Im confused.

Reply
scrafty March 26, 2015 9:38 pm
A PIC is a CP that excludes some part of the plan. If that part of the plan is bad and the
PIC is therefore better, then thats a reason not to do the plan. But a CP that includes the
entirety of the plan cant be a reason not to do the plan.
Reply
bobovering March 27, 2015

4:48 pm

There are two types of PICs: plan-plus and plan-minus. Plan-plus means the CP does the
entirety of the plan with some part added (e.g. presumed consent plus economic
incentives to donate). Plan-minus is a CP that is the entirety of the plan except for some
part of it (e.g. presumed consent for everybody except those with known religious
objections).
Typically, plan-plus is not a viable debate strategy because its easily permable. A
counterplan wants to compete on net benefits, i.e. there is some disad that the CP
avoids but the aff does not. However, in this case, the problem with the aff is that it
doesnt do enough, and the CP does more. That makes the perm the best option because
theres nothing wrong with the aff itself, just that it isnt inclusive of the added part of
the counterplan. The perm adds that part to the aff and thus the CP is no longer net
beneficial.
Reply
afghanistan March 24, 2015 5:44 pm
Just curious, whats wrong with that? Is it like a PIC? Im confused.