Development assistance should be priotized over miltia aid in Sahel
Debate Rounds (3)
Observation 1: Military Aid is needed
The current political instability and corruption in the Sahel region of Africa means that any development assistance would not have the full, if any, effect unless it was backed up by military aid.
Diana L. Ohlbaum Dec 23, 2013 "Think before casting the first stone against corruption" http://csis.org...
A new report from Global Financial Integrity shows that nearly $1 trillion was sapped from the developing [Sahel] world in 2011 through crime, corruption, and tax evasion " a dramatic increase from past years, and more than 10 times the total official development assistance that went in.
Observation 2: Official development assistance
UN agencies have established many specific-purpose funds. These are too numerous, and arise and disappear too quickly, to be listed in the Directives. The same applies to national non-governmental organizations. What is understood to be "development assistance" for the purpose of debate should be limited to Official development assistance which is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective.
Our strategy has 3 key themes:
" Firstly, that security and development in the Sahel cannot be separated, and that helping these countries achieve security is integral to enabling their economies to grow and poverty to be reduced.
" Secondly, that achieving security and development in the Sahel is only possible through closer regional cooperation.
" Thirdly, all the states of the region will benefit from considerable capacity building, both in areas of core government activity, including the provision of security and development cooperation.
Strategic Lines of Action.
The Strategy focuses primarily on the countries most affected by common security
challenges: Mali, Mauritania and Niger, while being placed in a larger regional context,
reaching towards Chad, the Maghreb and West Africa. The Strategy is articulated around four
complementary lines of action:
Cont. 1: Ensure Security and Fight against Terrorism: (Put for evidence if you don"t feel like this is worth reading)
EU and the US must simultaneously work to instill more efficient methods of preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution. Preventive diplomacy will substantially increase the security of the Sahel by providing a channel for peripheral grievances to be heard by the government. With such diplomacy, tensions could be resolved politically without escalating into violence. US and EU intelligence services should better collaborate with their African counterparts, not just reactively but proactively, by identifying and diffusing risks
Cont. 2: Drug Trafficking
The EU and the US should facilitate the development of regional and national institutions for conflict prevention by providing better resources, training, and technical support. One method to prevent conflict is to eliminate the funding methods of violent groups, which in the Sahel has been through drug trafficking to Europe. With the EU"s vested interests in the Sahel, financing and implementing methods to disrupt and dispel drug trafficking is crucial. As proven by US influence in Chad, "developing conflict mitigation and community stabilization projects" can be valuable in providing methods to prevent conflict. In addition, institutions managing conflict resolution at the national and regional level are necessary.
Sub point A: Combatting drug trafficking and piracy in Somali
http://www.nytimes.com... July 31, 2013
To combat piracy and trafficking, the international community should work with the F.B.I., Europol and Interpol to take on the land-based criminal networks that control the pirates by disrupting their money flows. Arresting and prosecuting the leaders and financiers of piracy groups could severely disrupt their businesses. Often the ringleaders who operate these gangs reside outside of Somalia and so have escaped prosecution. A concerted international effort must be made to identify the individuals involved, shut down their operations and bring them to justice.
Sub point B: high security lowers pirate attacks
The number of hijackings has decreased over the past several years"a situation largely attributed to ramped up security in Somalia. (For 2012 there were 50% lower attacks than in 2007).
Cont 3: Corruption is a threat to security
Arben Kola Cleveland Financial Fraud Examiner "Corruption is a threat to global security"
Corruption is both a cause of poverty, and a barrier to overcoming it. It is one of the most serious obstacles to reducing poverty. Furthermore, corruption threatens domestic and international security and the sustainability of natural resources. The UN understood the implications of corruption in the world economy and security in 2000. The Convention against Corruption approved by the Ad Hoc Committee was adopted by the General Assembly by its resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003 and entered into force in December 14, 2005. However, the developed countries need to commit themselves to fighting corruption in order to be successful against money laundering and terrorist financing.
Africa has more than enough military manpower to meet its security needs. The problem is that existing forces are too often corrupt, and ill-trained, rather than to help them. The US can best serve by providing countries with advisory and technical assistance, as well as more international military education and training.
Cont 4: MILITARY AID IS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE RECRUITMENT OF CHILD SOLDIERS Ban Ki-Moon, (UN Secretary General), REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE SITUATION IN MALI, Mar. 24, 2013.
Information was received by the UN concerning grave violations against children committed by parties in the north, including incidents of recruitment and use of children by armed forces, sexual violence against girls, forced marriages, abductions and attacks on schools and hospitals. Hundreds of children have been recruited by all of the armed groups active in the north, including Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.
Cont 5: Africa's Crumbling Center
The US, along with the EU, should move quickly to provide the necessary financial support to secure Kenya.
At the same time, Africa"s leaders must step up to the plate and provide more support to the African Union. Stabilizing the Central African Republic will require a doubling of the proposed 3,600 Misca troops. Securing the capital will only be a beginning: This mission should also safeguard main roads, starting with the major commercial artery running from Bangui to Garoua-Boula", at the Cameroonian border. This would both stabilize the Central African Republic and reduce the very real threat of violence spreading to its neighbors.
The Security Council has a precious opportunity to restore security. Without this, the task of implementing the transitional political road map cannot begin, there will be no reforms, elections expected in early 2016 will be difficult to convene, and the transition may stall and even collapse with only one result: civil war with unspeakable consequences for Africa"s volatile center.
First, that military assistance to Africa increases exploitation and abuse. Military assistance from other countries to Africa has a history of increasing abuse by training the people causing the problem. The Open Society Justice Initiative in 2012 reports that counterterrorism efforts authorized and aided by the UN after the July 2010 World Cup Bombing in Uganda led to human rights abuses against the supposed terrorists including denial of due process rights, physical abuse, arbitrary detentions, and unlawful renditions. Along with the U.N. military aid that lead to abuses, the United States has a track record of training militants that go against their cause. The Washington Post reports in May 2013 that a U.N. report found that the 391st Congolese army battalion that received military training from the United States went on to commit mass rapes and other atrocities in 2012. The United State"s goal in the Congo was to professionalize their "ragtag" military, and in the end they only made the human rights abuses worse as they provided them the tools and expertise to commit them. Additionally, in Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post in 2012 reports that the leader of a Mali coup that disrupted democratic elections was professionally trained by the United States. Because of this coup the United States military was required to suspend relations with Mali. On top of this, a report from Oendrila Dube from Columbia University analyzed political violence data and found that United States military assistance throughout the world increased attacks by paramilitaries especially during election years. The report also found that foreign military assistances strengthens armed non-state actors. These incidents and reports show that as a whole, U.S. military aid is not effective and in fact counterproductive as it increases militant"s ability to create rights abuses.
Second, development aid is greatly beneficial to the African Sahel region"s agriculture. Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen, economics professors at Georgetown University reported in 2008 that sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest agricultural productivity in the world and the highest percentage of people living in poverty. Stephen Cockburn of Oxfam International reported in May 2012 that there is a food crisis in Sahel. The country of Mali alone has 3,600,000 people with severely insecure food resources. According to an Oxfam survey in the Sahelian belt of Eastern Chad, 63% of households were unable to cover their food needs after February 2012. Food stocks have already run out in many communities, with an estimated 18.4 million people in nine countries in extreme hunger. Desertification, or land degradation, is a major issue in the Sahel. According to the Economist in December 2010, desertification is often caused by poor farming methods. This includes nomadic behavior and lack of crop rotation, which are prevalent in the Sahel. However, development assistance would help stop these harmful behaviors. Development assistance in agriculture is proactive and long term. Long-term development assistance is sensitive to drought risks and reduces vulnerability by reducing risk factors. An example of this development assistance is the Syngenta Foundation. This organization has partnered with the governments of many Sahel countries, including Mali, to introduce numerous seed varieties and technologies for semi-arid areas. They"ve also set up cooperatives and greatly improved the access of these countries to markets. Farmers in this area are seeing increasing opportunities to become viable commercial partners. This would help stop desertification because farmers would actually be able to become large-scale farmers, rather than just continuing to be subsistence planters. The Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture is supporting rice intensification projects in Senegal, Mali, and Burkina Faso, which has made the rice supply chain more efficient and reliable, greatly increased yields, and most importantly will help establish food security in this region. Saving human lives is the most important weight in this round, and development assistance provides the stability people in the Sahel need to survive.
I affirm the resolution on two contentions. One, military assistance to Africa increases exploitation and abuse. Two, development aid is greatly beneficial to the African Sahel region"s agriculture.
I also disagree with my oppenent on the fact that when we sent military to South Sudan in the past we not only saw that the aid did not help stabalize the country, but it helped create a civil war! the weopons and training we provided were not used how we intended them to be used for and instead were used to kill more people, this goes to show that it also lowered their security. http://www.petermartell.com... On the other hand, developmental assistance ensures to help stabalize the country and security with the use of cameras or other such items.
Onto terrorism, military force alone isn't enough to solve terrorism http://leadership.ng..., you first need a stable government, which has been imperically proven that military aid will not provide. also when attacking terrorism we need not to attack from the outside and go and kill all of these groups, but instead go to the root cause which is poverty, hunger and famine to permanently stop terrorism from happening instead of attacking the groups right away and then hoping they will not recover. We can see that terrorism starts with poverty with logic, when a family becomes poor they look to alternatives which includes terrorism, so when provided with healthier, better paying non-life threatening jobs such as in agriculture these terrorists will drop out of the groups to make the money.
main Types of Military Aid
1. Military funding
There are three main programs where military funding is allocated:
Foreign military financing provides grants for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, services, and training. These grants enable friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities.
2. Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Provide voluntary support for international peacekeeping activities. These funds support non-U.N. operations and training in response to a nation"s crisis. The goals of PKO are:
"Promoting increased involvement of regional organizations in conflict resolution
"Helping leverage support for multinational efforts in the event of a nation"s crisis
3. The International Military Education and Training program (IMET) offers military training on a grant basis to foreign military officials. The goals of IMET are:
A. Encouraging effective defense relationships
B. Promoting interoperability with U.S. and coalition forces
militia aid can solve for terrorism using the EU strategy. In 3 years al-Quid can be rid of following this strategy. I am not advocating we send troops in in fact my case specifically states that Africa already has enough militia. I am just advocating that we train them, an educate them which militia aid can do. obviously its better to train them then let them handle things on their own. the U.S. has funded 91 billion bucks in training around the world.
I also like to point out the fact that lots of warlords and corrupt leaders try to stop development assistance from going through anyway. I also like to point out the fact that is has been abused, and hasn't worked well in Afghanistan, and Palestine and other places alone. Also my observation which shows that nearly $1 trillion was sapped from the developing [Sihanouk] world in 2011 through crime, corruption, and tax evasion " a dramatic increase from past years, and more than 10 times the total official development assistance that went in. So he can't really talk when it comes to failures in the past especially since unlike him my strategy is fresh and has adjusted to older possible problems while his is the same thing loll. So development alone will increase these problems. I would like to point out that most of the failures he posted were U.S. failures while my plan mostly deals with the EU and some what with the U.S. so I win the failure argument anyway loll in 3 ways.
I'd like to state that the EU plan will fix political problems and help upheld a democracy, it also allows us, and the EU to have a closer bond with regional countries so we can deal with border problems, and drug trafficking easily which my opponents case can't solve. We can also deal with terrorism which I show multiple times. The correlation between corruption and terrorism shows that taking military action against terror works to reduce corruption as well.
My opponent fails to show how he himself can solve for terrorism, drug trafficking, or piracy which I show we can solve for. ironically the one thing he claims I can't solve terrorism he doesn't show how he can solve himself which means development assistance wouldn't work because of the corruption, and terrorism still there which means I win that argument either way loll. He does try to show how he can end security which I'm bought to get to.
To me the biggest LOL in this debate is the fact that he trys to prove he can solve for security. IDK if you noticed his solution but his solution is to put cameras up and other things. LOL unless these "cameras" are equipped with lasers to intervene and fire on criminals or some bull crap that's not going to stop terrorist. He's probably going to try to defend this by saying "it lets us know and be able to stop enemies", but how can the African army stop them without proper training? All that would do is help our side out because we can provide training and support to help them stop terrorism loll so thx for that.
I have all the benefits of development assistance cause I state in my intro that I do not feel like development assistance should be prioritized over militia aid because both are needed in the Sahel. So his benefits of agriculture I have because I am not getting rid of Development assistance at all . In fact I believe it is good to have and helps my strategy function.
The main reason I win so far is because all my opponents attacks have been focused on problems the U.S. has caused when this strategy was made by and focuses mostly on the EU loll. I also win because I show that militia aid is needed because it solves for some things development assistance can't. Since I m running how both militia aid and development assistance is needed all I have to do is prove that militia aid can do one beneficial thing that development assistance can't and I have proven more then one. It can provide training and support, it can help promote political stability, can help fund major projects which will increase trade and help the economy, and it can allow development assistance to work safely in the first place. States from this strategy will benefit from capacity building.
Also he brings up how militia aid caused a civil war in Sudan or somewhere like that but I show we can solve for the on that can come up in Kenya. He doesn't show how he can stop civil wars which leads to corruption which I show I can solve. Kenya is even more important to help lower corruption in because its the center of the African Union and corruption their can spread. Even if you buy his arguments saying miltia aid fails even though most of it has to do with the U.S. and I mostly focus on EU but some of U.S. involvement those things he posted happened in the past. We are improving militia aid and since it has development assistance added and more countries involved this will work better then it has in the past. IDK if I mentioned this or not but Development assistance has failed in the past in countries such as Afghanistan and Palestine as well so he can't really talk much when it comes to past failure. The assistance gets abused or sold by the people who don't even need/use them, or it doesn't even make it safely to the intended recipients.
Also ironically I would like to point out how my case says how we can deal with all these child abuses from militia training in the Sahel such as rape. So yes I can solve for that as well.
Even if you buy his abuses argument which I show I solve for what would you prefer. Abuses from not voting for both militia aid and development assistance or deaths from terrorism continuing to spread, and corruption continuing to spread cause of going by development assistance which wouldn't even work in that situation? Even if you don't buy the fact that con solves for child abuse we are still the preferable side even if you prefer him on that argument.
The main reason my side wins so far because I have his contention 2 literly I agree that development assistance is good. So it doesn't give him any offensive XD. The only way he can win is by somehow defending his cont1. and I shown how at least 75% of it doesn't matter because it has to do with the U.S. acting alone LOL. My strategy involves mostly the E.U. and some help from the U.S. and possible other countries as well. It's not the same thing so it will not have the same problems. Also I have shown clear contradictions with the arguments my opponent has brought up in todays round.
Btw I am only 16 and not the best type so excuse my grammar, i'm also in K level classes so not as intelligent as some debaters who are in AP level so excuse my word
1. To start on the first main point of terrorism, my opponent says that I have failed to show how developmental aid will solve, but if you would look at the last round you will see that I talk about how terrorism is caused by poverty, hunger and famine which in my second point clearly states developmental aid will solve for and my opponent has specifically stated that he agrees developmental aid will solve for. Also my opponent tries to talk about how he will be using the training method, although how will he get the people to train if they are all starving, with 3,600,000 people starving and 18.4 million with unstable food sources shows they will not have the money to go into training, and if my opponent tries to advocate that the training will be free you will have to see that the people with unstable food sources will not have the time to do the training since they will use all of their time trying to get money for food any way possible which in most cases is terrorism, drug trafficking or other illegal means. With developmental aid we will solve solve the starvation problem first and solve terrorism and other illegal means from the inside instead of attacking from the outside and hoping they will not recover.
Onto security, my opponent tried to advocate that cameras will not stop the problem since they have the lack of police, but considering developmental aid solves for all of the illegal means my opponent advocates security will not be as important.
Onto corruption, my opponent bring up how developmental aid didn't work in Middle East countries in the past, the problem with his statement with that is that we are not currently debating the Middle East, we are debating the Sahel region. With South Sudan which has been a country in the Sahel region since 2011 we see that when the world provided them with training and weapons instead of using them for security they used them to attack civilians which ended up causing a civil war. When my opponent tries to advocate that training will solve security and stability and corruption, you have to see that military aid has empirically proven in the SAHEL REGION to cause insecure, unstable and corrupt countries without the use of developmental aid first.
2. Onto the second main point of the round which is agriculture, I somewhat covered this in my last point which my opponent has agreed that developmental aid solves for. We need to solve for hunger before we try to train police so we can have police to train in the first place! or at least a good amount of police.
3. Lastly, human right violations, my partner tries to bring up that all of my examples are from the U.S. except he failed to read the one example from the UN, also other countries such as Uganda and Kenya have a history of committing human rights abuses in the Sahel Region through the use of military aid fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/julaug13/us_aid_to_africa_the_militarys_outsized_role/ Although it is not the EU we have to see that when the United States, The United Nations, Uganda and Kenya used some form of military aid to the Sahel Region, human rights violations were committed, so why would the European Union be any different? My opponent claims to solve for child soldiers, but those human right violations are not the majority of human rights violations.
As the round stands on terrorism I have shown that in order to eliminate terrorism permanently we must attack it from the inside with solving for poverty, hunger and famine. On security, there will not be enough people to train to become police officers since they don't have the time or money. On corruption/stability, it has been empirically proven in South Sudan that military training/aid will only cause a more unstable country to begin with. On agriculture my opponent agrees that developmental aid will solve for 3,600,000 people that are currently starving and the 18.4 million people with unstable food sources. On human rights, it has been empirically proven with the UN, US, Uganda and Kenya (I can list more if necessary) that human rights violations were committed with any form of military aid without developmental aid first.
Attack on his point 1:
A: He states that he can solve for terrorism. I clearly show that yes it can, but not without miltia aid and training of soilders to take on terrorism. Even if development aid could solve for terrorism it can't solve for corruption and problems such as political instability and piracy and problems of Africa's military alone.
B: He states that I will not be able to get miltia and how he can solve the problem from the inside.
Response: My main question is how do you plan on getting in the inside in the first place? I clearly state that development assistance will not make it to the right people and results in more corruptness. I also sate that Africa already has a military so we will have enough people. Also since the Sahel region has awe most 300 million people or so your number is less then 1/20th even if the total population. So obviously we have more then enough people to fight for us after we win over their trust by providing them with better trade, projects, grievances so they can be heard by the government, resources, and education. Not to mention our strategy also helps in climate problems.
C: I honestly don't understand the argument he attempted to defend his Camera solution to security. Also wouldn't putting cameras around with surveillance cost a lot of money and a lot of time? Also I show we can help train the security forces and I shown how using that idea has helped lower the piracy attack problems greatly and can stop a civil war in Kenya. Would you prefer people who enforce the law, or cameras that just see what is going on, and can't do anything about it?
D: Since my opponent claims my argument of past failures for development is irrelevant(even though the countries it was used in had similar problems as the Sahel) and he claims it is not topical since it was done in the past.
He literally just dropped his whole cont. 1 showing failures of the U.S. acting alone in the past. So he can't use that anymore either so this past stuff Is off the debate I agree with you on that. He conceded all past failures are un topical so his cont1. is gone. Also I show a 1 trillion cost of failure of development aid in the Sahel region so unlike my opponent I have something still standing. also my strategy is different from the ones that failed anyway, way different.
E: He concludes by claiming militia aid has proven to increase corruptness but again my strategy is new and has mostly the EU involved the EU and the U.S. together can do more, and again he claimed past failures are un topical so this argument is gone anyway. Also the incidence with U.N. in France proves some of this U.S. alone military aid stuff actually works anyway, and that was more recent then the failures he had, so I guess even militia aid alone is changing it's plan while development assistance still remains the same? Which shows how the trillion dollar cost and the continued corrupt misuse of development assistance alone will keep growing.
HE concludes that development assistance must be put first because militia aid alone fails. Even if you were to believe it does I am not advocating it going alone I am advocating it go with development assistance, this is a new way that isn't the same as the way tried that failed in the past. And again past failures are off the board either way. And as I just stated and continue to state my strategy is not the same as the one that he seems to be saying failed in the past.
2. Onto the second main point of the round which is agriculture, I somewhat covered this in my last point which my opponent has agreed that developmental aid solves for. We need to solve for hunger before we try to train police so we can have police to train in the first place! or at least a good amount of police.
This is his argument for point 2. I already combated some things about it. First the fact that their are over 300 million people in the Sahel so that just proves my point that Africa has plenty of military since the amount that are hungry account for less then 20% of that. Even if it was 50% we would still have enough lol. I agree development assistance is good I am not saying it's bad so if he presses the agriculture thing it doesn't help me or him. It doesn't effect this round in anyway since we both agree development assistance is good.
point 3: He says since I am solving for only a little bit of violation of rights it's not majority so doesn't impact. He just contradicted himself so basically his whole case is dead now I have won this round. He already dropped his cont 1. Now he drops his cont 2. His amount for people going hungry he shows is only a small amount of the population. SO I guess that is off the debate to? HE can't solve for majority of hunger especially since I have shown how corruption and terrorism will block the way so his whole cont1: falls. Since cause of corruption and the fact he could only solve for a little without corruption anyway since poverty takes a while to fix that whole contention falls.
It didn't give him any offensive anyway since I agree development is good but still it's gone now.
A: He admits he has nothing for the EU failing he says well if other countries fail the EU will to?
First of all i'd like too point out that the UN is a mostly worthless organization that hasn't resolved a single issue. The people who debate and talk about the issues are often powerless in their own country and use debate to stall, and keep something from passing on. If one veto is passed by a country they can't do anything, and that usually happens.
The EU not only is different from the UN and U.S. but has a way different plan then they had. Also the EU has put more into this because it affects them more. If the drug trafficking is working maybe this can to? Also again this plan has the U.S. helping the EU with the EU's plan not the U.S. plan. The EU probably noticed how the U.S. failed and adjusted to it as well. The U.S. is probably making sure the EU doesn't make the same mistakes either as well just incase they go by this strategy.
I win so far not only because of what I said above, and showed above; but also because of the fact that he hasn't attacked much of my case at all so I still win even if you were to buy every argument he had.
He hasn't attacked or attempted to attack my cont 1: Ensure Security and Fight against Terrorism
He hasn't attacked or attempted to attack my cont 2: drug trafficking which is one of my biggest cases
He hasn't even brought up my Sub point A: drug trafficking and piracy in Somalia.
And he gave up on the civil war thing and dropped my cont 5: Africas crumbiling center
HE also doesn't attack the cont 4: MILITARY AID IS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE RECRUITMENT OF CHILD SOLDIERS
he just states just cause I solve a little it's effective. Which I have adressesd.
The only thing he trys to even sorta attack and I have fought against is attacks mostly on my cont3. I show how I can benefit more in security and the fight against terrorism. Also lets not forget development assistance working alone has cost 1 trillion bucks.
Even if you felt like the pro won on attacking cont3: I still win cause I took down 2 of his contentions and he dropped down 80% of my case.
I have shown a strategy that does everything voting his side can do, and more. I did what I needed to do to win so far. I have shown how militia aid can solve for things development assistance can't so we need both. I have won the battle for militia aid solving for security while development assistance mostly poverty intro argument, because his solution to security was putting cameras up, while mine was training a force, while providing food, channel for grievances to help fight corruption
https://www.google.com... prioritize is "designate or treat (something) as more important than other things." this definition does not state at all that we do things in a certain order. I brought this definition up because I will be using throughout this speech.
I will be going on the biggest points in this round which are: 1. terrorism 2. agriculture and 3. security and stabilization
To start off with terrorism, at the end of this round you need to look at the fact that I have proven that without developmental aid to help military aid, military can not solve for terrorism. Also I would like to carry across how throughout this debate my opponent has barely argued my point that terrorism begins with poverty and by solving poverty we will in fact solve terrorism.
Onto the second point which is agriculture, with this point we need to look at utilitarianism, which is "what will benefit the most lives" in this case agriculture will in fact save the most people in this debate. This point has been agreed to multiple times by the con that the pro in fact does solve and tries to say that we can do both military and developmental aid... I completely agree to this statement, although we should treat developmental aid with more importance (as my definition of prioritize states) as at the end of the round it is saving the most significant number of lives, my opponent tries to say that 18 million 4 hundred thousand people is not significant considering the 300 million people in the Sahel region, what my opponent is basically saying here is "yeah it is ok for 18 million people to die through starvation, because it is less than 50% of the country" that is the equivalent to saying "its ok for 150 million people to die in America since its less than half, or 62,699,999 people are ok to die in America since its less than 20%". What I am trying to get at here is the fact of percentages don't matter in this round. The number of people being saved is what is important and in this case developmental aid is what will be saving the most significant amount of people.
Lastly onto security and stabilization, my opponent tries to advocate that he will be using a different method of training. What my opponent fails to see is the fact that training is what lead to the war in South Sudan, without a way to monitor the people of the country we will never know if they are using our training correctly or incorrectly. In this case cameras are the solution. My opponent also tried to say that there is no safe way to get the developmental aid into the region without military help, again I agree to this, although we will prioritize the developmental aid (make it of more importance).
My opponent also tried to bring up the cost of developmental aid within this debate, although when you are saving 18.4 lives no cost is too high, every life has significance in the world and no one should be put through starvation, it is the worlds moral obligation to solve this problem immediately.
At the end of this round we must look at who will be saving the most lives which is the pro, who has proven with the support but not the importance of military aid can and will solve all of the problems within this round. My opponent contended this within his last speech that both together will work, all I am saying now is to make development more important since it will save the most lives.
Good Debate MoneyStacker, thanks for debating with me
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.