First world governments giving financial aid to third world countries.
I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I noticed a lack of definitions, so I would like to bring forth some definitions to guide this debate.
First world governments - the major industrialized non-Communist countries including Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, etc.
Third wolrd countries - underdeveloped countries usually especially those suffering from wide spread poverty
Financial aid - the giving of money to developing countries to support the growth of the receiving country 
I look forward to my opponent's first arguments!
1. Foreign aid doesn't go directly to the people
Foreign aid is given to the governments of these 3rd world countries. It's the governments of these 3rd world nations to decide where the money goes. In 2010 the US government gave 1.3 billion dollars to Eygpt, so they could expand there military. Infact a large number of foreign aid that the US gives goes towards military expansion for other countries. To be specific 1/4 or 5.2 billion dollars and that doesn't even include the amount of money given to military education, anti-terrorism military units and peace keeping operations. Another example is in 2002 the king of Swaziland use the foreign aid that he recieve to buy a royal jet. Swaziland is a country where 65% of the people live in extreme poverty and 1/3 of the population has AIDS/HIV. Yet the government of Swaziland ask for more money and central bank doesn't even question.
2. Foreign aid hasn't changed a countries status.
The 10 biggest annual recipients of U.S. aid for the pass year or so are Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, Haiti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Kenya and Nigeria. Out of these 10 countries only the two are slightly stable economically are Israel and Egypt, but the rest are still in chaos and if anything the financial aid is causing more chaos. For example most of the Aid given to Mexico goes towards fighting the war on drugs, yet the supply and demand for these illegal drugs hasn't changed and has only resulted to the death of countless innocent lives. Another example is the UN have put 25 Billion dollars to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, yet AIDS prevalence in Africa has nearly doubled in the pass 10 years and a study in 2000 said that 11,000 people in Africa are being infected by AIDS every day.
3. The system we use now is entirely inefficient
As far as the system goes to bring the actual money and health supplies to theses 3rd world countries is entirely inefficient. It is estimated that 40 to 60 percent of medical supplies that are meant to go to clinics in West Africa get stolen of lose before they even reach the clinic and are sold in a black market. Having an over surplus of free foods have led to the bankruptcies of many farmers in southern Africa. Another inefficient thing about the free food market is the idea that the food is shipped on American carriers. Shipping on American carriers is 4 to 5 times more expensive European carriers. In too many cases, especially in Africa, the effect of foreign aid has been to sustain and pop up dictatorships. Foreign aid enables dictators to depend on foreign aid to feed the people, while diverting domestic money to buying weapons and maintaining an army that enhances the dictatorship (This is all happening behind the Central Banks back).
I thank my opponent for his comments. I would now like to provide some refutation and present some of my own contentions.
Foreign aid is given to the governments of these 3rd world countries.
That is correct; the money is given to the government. Firstly, if you look at my uncontested definition, in no part does it say that the money must go to the people. A government’s responsibility is to its people. The fact that money goes into expanding a military is still foreign aid, no one would deny that a strong military is important. The fact that the US provided money to various countries is a strong example of how financial aid has improved a country. Financial aid doesn’t always have to be for building schools, or purifying water, financial aid to improve a military is justifiable and acceptable.
Another example is in 2002 the king of Swaziland used the foreign aid that he received to buy a royal jet.
As I have already said, foreign aid doesn’t have to go to the people. If you look at the definition I put forth (which went uncontested by my opponent) the royal jet may have actually increased the growth of the country. The king then had a royal jet, thus he was happier. A happier king is a better king. Furthermore, a single example cannot be used to condemn foreign aid. Other countries receiving foreign aid have benefitted greatly:
Germany to Ghana – Free primary education for all
Italy to Mozambique – Increased health care
UK to Nepal – Free health care and maternal health 
Foreign aid hasn’t changed a countries status.
Foreign aid has helped millions of people, as I have shown above. The fact that the country hasn’t changed in status means nothing as the point of foreign aid is to help the country get through rough times. For example, would my opponent not give foreign aid to Haiti after the massive earthquake and thus condemn a country to death?
Another example is the UN have put 25 billion dollars to fight AIDS/HIV in Africa, yet AIDS prevalence in Africa has nearly doubled in the past 10 years.
I don’t know where my opponent is getting his statistics as AIDS/HIV in Africa has steadily been dropping, in fact, coffin makers in Southern Africa are going out of business because not enough people are dying of AIDS.  Foreign aid is extremely effective in increasing the standards of life in these developing countries.
The system we use now is entirely inefficient.
My opponent is suggesting this, instead of changing up our system of transporting the aid we should give up aid entirely. Instead of shipping on American carriers, ship on European. Convoys containing these supplies can be guarded, free food not left out in the open for anyone to take, but to be rationed out appropriately. This is easily refuted.
Foreign aid enables dictators to depend on foreign aid to feed the people, while diverting domestic money to buying weapons and maintaining an army that enhances dictatorship.
But the country benefits. Any form of government is superior to no form, a dictatorship is not necessarily wrong, but in this case the foreign aid maintains a government in the countries.
C1: FOREIGN AID SAVES LIVES
American aid to African countries have saved countless people from dying from AIDS/HIV. Foreign aid provides medications to extend the lifespan, food to stave famine, and stability to counteract chaos. None of this is deniable, without food to Haiti would the population have survived? No. Without foreign aid, there would be far more deaths, far more famines, and far more chaos. My opponent is a proponent of the second option.
C2: FOREIGN AID GETS COUNTRIES ONTO THEIR FEET
Without intervention in Haiti, the country would have been cut off at the knees. With foreign aid, Haiti looks like it’s on its way to recovery. Without foreign aid, the county and it’s people would have been condemned to death. This is not acceptable. Foreign aid has been the life vest keeping drowning countries afloat, the fortunate giving to the less fortunate. Cutting foreign aid is puncturing that life vest, countries around the world will sink.
I have refuted my opponent’s arguments and brought forth some of my own. Thus, it is clear for VOTERS TO VOTE PRO.
This is the start of the 3rd round
I don’t know where my opponent is getting his statistics as AIDS/HIV in Africa has steadily been dropping
I got this from google public data (All info comes from the World Bank). This statistic says other wise, I'll start off with some countries that don't have that much of a big difference in AIDS prevelance then go to countries with big differences.
Country (year - # of cases)
Gabon (2000 - 1,800), (2009 - 3,600)
Benin (2000 - 2,700), (2009 - 5,400)
Swaziland (2000 - 7,600), (2009 - 14,000)
Sudan (2000 - 3,800), (2009 - 15,000)
Ghana (2000 - 16,000), (2009 - 27,000)
Mozambique (2000 - 44,000), (2009 - 130,000)
South Africa (2000 - 140,000), (2009 - 330,000)
Nigeria (2000 - 250,000), (2009 - 360,000)
Out of the 39 African countries that I researched (I know there's 53 African countries, there was just no data for the rest) only 4-5 countries showed a slight decrease in AID/HIV prevelance in the pass 10 years.
The king then had a royal jet, thus he was happier. A happier king is a better king.
Are you essentially saying that that having a happier king is more important than spending money on relieve for his people.
The fact that the US provided money to various countries is a strong example of how financial aid has improved a country.
Wouldn't having a bigger army just make more debt to a country which would increase more financial aid. Plus during the 1970s Israel and Jordan both requested for more financial aid just so they could get an upper advantage to each other because they in war against each other and even today Egypt uses it's military expansion just so it can maintain a military advantage to Israel. Is it a good thing knowing that taxpayers money are going towards fueling a war between two countries that they are not invovled in.
Furthermore, a single example cannot be used to condemn foreign aid.
What about the example I gave about aid going towards the war on drugs. Also I have stated another example above (Israel vs Eygpt). Another example could be in 1985 when the Mengistu government had a major famine, 200 million dollars worth of foreign aid went towards celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Marxist revolution. Another example is the free food running farmers and markets out of business.
Instead of changing up our system of transporting the aid we should give up aid entirely.
Don't get wrong I would support foreign aid if it were to address the problems I have listed and if the money and medical supplies were tracked better, but I feel foreign aid should be cut completely if all it doing in fueling wars, causing deaths to innocent lives (war on drugs), ect... and for the American carriers, I see no problem using Italian or French carriers. I would assume they would be guarded just like the American carriers.
FOREIGN AID GETS COUNTRIES ONTO THEIR FEET
Actually there are statistics that might hint that foreign aid actually slows down a countries economy. For example, the salary in several South African didn't make that much of a growth once more financial aid was given. Another example is the GDP growth comparsion; once Cuba was cut off of financial aid in the 1990's it's GDP grew a total of 21% in the next 3 years, when Afghanistan was recently given more military aid it's GDP dropped 12%, When the republic of the Congo recieved extensive relieve to "fix its economy" the GDP dropped 23%. Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Brazil, China and India are all examples of countries that made it without financial aid.
Don't vote for war activism or economy slow downs. VOTE AGAINST
P.S. sorry for the delay I had work yesterday and didn't have time to write an arguement back, until today.
Google public data
ishallannoyyo forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfieted the third round. You have one more chance to counter my round 3 arguement.
VOTE CON, VOTE CON, VOTE CON!
I apologize for my forfeit. I am starting school in 3 days. I must concede this debate, vote con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|