The Instigator
anonymouse
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
johnnyvbassist
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Foreign aid is another term for bribery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
johnnyvbassist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,955 times Debate No: 37702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

anonymouse

Pro

When western countries go into the third world and "offer foreign aid", you can count on it that the western regimes expect something back in return, in other words, concessions for western multinational corporations. If Britain offers $1 million in foreign aid to the Singapore regime, you can guarantee that Singaporians will be obligated to buy $10 million worth of British "goods" in return.
johnnyvbassist

Con

Hello there! You have brought up a moral issue that is not often discussed. I look forward to hearing more about your opinion.

There are a couple things that disturbed me about your opening statement.

1. "When western countries go into the third world..." Before going any further it must be clarified what exactly you mean by western countries. Obviously, you do not mean the land, so you either mean the government or the common citizen. Because the common citizen can not be hastily generalized easily I will assume you are refering to a Western country's governmental foriegn aid. The problem is you have not cited any source so I do not know if I can trust you that this principle has always been true, not to mention, will continue to be true.

2. You say that these countries will expect something back. It is interesting because I cannot tell if you are trying to argue that these governments are forcing these less priviledged countries to give something in return? Or, are you saying that these countries' governments are simply compeled to give something back? If it is the latter, then that is their own choice and there is nothing wrong or unethical about that.

If you are going to make a claim in any debate, do not solely rely on hyperbole. Using the "1,000,000 to 10,000,000 argument" simply puts extreme ideas into people's heads with no evidence. If you could cite an example that would help further this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
anonymouse

Pro

Western countries means the regime, either through military or intelligence agencies. Nowadays, they are increasingly using NGO's, and foundations. USAID should be a good example of an entity that bribes third world countries into providing favourable climates for western multinationals. I don't cite sources, because most of the sources on the internet are foundation funded, so what's the point? But if you want to entertain yourself, you can either read the book confessions of an economic hitman, or watch the video. The guy, John Perkins talks about this. He makes some interesting points, but also talks a lot of nonsense, so use your common sense when listening to him. He lures you in with truthful information, but most likely has an agenda. Just because I, or anyone else cites a source doesn't mean its true. There are plenty of liars who get published. In fact, I would argue that the people who tell the truth are the ones who will be denied a voice. Rich people own all the publishing companies, and they get to decide who gets heard.

If the U.S. regime gives Singapore $1 million in aid, then it will expect back all kinds of things. One of the things is to give concessions to western multinational corporations, but Singapore will also be expected to conform to U.S. military demands. So maybe Singapore will gives concessions to American Standard toilets. The idea here is that Singaporians can make their own toilets, but instead, they import expensive toilets from American corporations instead. This is at a disadvantage to the ordinary Singaporian, but Lee Hsien Loong does not care because he is receiving bribes from the U.S. regime. It's not just the U.S. regime that does it. France, Britain, Canada, and Germany all do it. It's actually the choice of the Singaporian citizen. Just because Singapore leader (Lee Hsien Loong) gets his palm greased, does not mean that the ordinary Singaporians get anything out of it. That's how corruption works. It is not meant to benefit the entire population. If anything, they lose something by buying overpriced western products. Starbucks is another example. Lee Hsien Loong allows Starbucks concessions in Singapore in exchange for bribes. What ends up happening is that Singaporians spend their hard earned cash on really expensive coffee, as opposed to home grown tea. This is in direct conflict with local tea shops. Starbucks effectively puts the local tea shops out of business, and denies the local merchants an opportunity. If Lee Hsien Loong wasn't corrupt, then Singaporians would be buying tea from their compatriots. Instead of it being a free market, Lee Hsien Loong has given western corporations an artificial advantage. In essence, what you have here is a dictatorship, where Lee Hsien Loong gets to decide who gets what. He gets the bribes, peddles western products to his people, and the people lose. This is why the west hates North Korea so much, because they actually put their own people first, and deny Starbucks, American Standard, Samsung, and Apple the opportunity to loot the country. And it's usually the same thug corporations like Samsung, and Apple who fund the attempted overthrow of governments like North Korea.

Wake up. This is the internet, and information is filtered by the ruling class of the United States. If they are the guilty party, why would they allow this kind of information so easily? Even if I do make citations, so what? Why should anyone trust these quackademics? The important thing is to think for yourself, and not let some phd do the thinking for you. Anything that is available on the internet and books that challenge the establishment is most likely controlled opposition. No one really dares to genuinely publish information that is damning of the west, because if they do, the west will retaliate with sanctions, and or aggression. I am using the $1m-$10m example. It's not extreme at all. If you look at how much wealth the west has compared with the third world, then this hyperbole is perfectly plausible. Think about it, the west doesn't really have that much to offer to the world really. If you look at the history of the west, it really has no accomplishments to speak of up until 300 years ago, and it was only when it started robbing other countries and practicing this aggressive bribery that they began to prosper, and it's the only way they will continue to prosper. There is nothing else their prosperity is based on.
johnnyvbassist

Con

1. I will keep your definition of military rather than government because that is more a accurate definition. However, it is important to not that the military authority is a government and, unless acting rogue, will listen to orders from the government.

2. I will accept your conclusion for not citing sources as long as you are aware it makes all of your arguments less credible. I have no reason to address issues that I feel are mere speculation of exaggeration because I have no way of knowing whether you are getting your information from a specific source or just some random part of your brain.

3. You keep talking about "if the U.S....then Singapore..." This is talking in a present future tense. In other words, you are basically saying you know the future. It is a minor point because I understand what you are trying to say, but try to be more logical and less emotional when making statements about what will happen when another thing happens.

4. You gave a excellent example to illustrate your point and I have no reason (outside of a lack a verifiable sources) to dismiss that argument as true.

5. This is my main point so please read carefully. If everything about your example is true, then the problems are not caused by the American militia, but rather the Singaporean government. The thing about bribes is you can decline them. If the U.S., in your example, was forcing the country to make these purchases through threats of violence, then it would no longer be a bribe and no longer be aid. We would be having a different conversation. In morality, it is significantly more immoral to accept a bribe than to offer one.

6. The citizen is not required to use any of the products you listed with the only possible exception being the toilet. If the Singaporean citizen does not want to buy Starbucks no one is forcing s/he to.

"If Lee Hsien Loong wasn't corrupt, then Singaporeans would be buying tea from their compatriots. Instead of it being a free market, Lee Hsien Loong has given western corporations an artificial advantage." Well this statement ruined your debate for a couple of reasons.

(1) You used the term free market. I do not thing Lee Hsien Loong is taking away any freedom from the Singapore people by adding more options. The more corruptions added the more like a free market Singapore will be. This has obvious flaws, but it is actually in keeping with the idea of free market.

(2) Referring back to my earlier point, you are seeming to imply that the Singaporeans are being forced to buy American products. "They would be buying tea from compatriots." Then why aren't they still?" You claim that these places shut down the small local businesses, yet it is not the competion's fault, it has to be the consumer. That is how the free market works.

CONCLUSION: Your debate up to this point has been very hard for to read merely because it is comprised of examples only. Your thesis is "Foreign Aid is another term for bribery." You can use examples, but instead just thinking about particular stories you have heard or read about, please try to logically prove your thesis. Why is foreign aid always just a politically correct way of saying bribery?
Debate Round No. 2
anonymouse

Pro

No. The usage of citations makes a person less credible, because it shows that he is either part of the establishment, a representative of the establishment, or someone who takes the establishment seriously. Most citations are from books, or internet articles, and in order to publish these, you must receive a significant amount of funding, which makes the author very likely to be corruptable, and or corrupted. The idea here is to think for yourself, and not let some article think for you. Sure you can quote the New York Times, or Washington Post, but what exactly makes the NY Times a credible source in the first place? If you write anything revolution on these newspapers, you will be fired immediately. Everything you write has to fall into the boundaries of the corporate elite. So why should the corporate elite be able to set the standards for me, or anyone else?

I never blamed the western countries solely for the problem of corruption. They are part of the corruption, and the people taking the bribes are the other part of the problem.

I never said that Starbucks is forcing people to buy their coffee. I said that if and when politicians like Lee Hsien Loong give concessions to corporations like Starbucks, it creates an atmosphere where people are wasting their money on Starbucks coffee rather than buying affordable local tea from local merchants.

I never said anything about Lee taking freedom away from the people. However, if you bribe a politician to generate an artificially favourable market for some corporations and not others, then this is not a free market. Once bribes come into the equation, then it is no longer a free market, and the ones who offer the bribes obviously will be given preferential treatment in the specific market. Do you think a small tea shop will have the same kind of bribes to offer the government as compared to Starbucks, or McDonalds?

There's a reason why the west is richer than the rest of the world, and this is because they play dirty.

If they give you $1, you better be sure that they will expect $10 back in return. Let's not live in a fairy tale.

There is no way, western corporations could survive in a real free market. It must be 100% rigged. That's why they had to crash the industries of China, and India, before they were able to take over the market with brute force, and aggression. This is also why the U.S. regime must keep 800 military bases world wide. The market can't be free when you have thousands of warheads pointed at everyone.

I don't even know why I am debating shills, but I suppose the questions that I pose, and the points that I bring up can help normal people break out of the cage that you are trying to keep them in. I write in a simple way that can reach the masses. I don't use deceptive wording or terminology to confuse people like many of the online shills do.

You may be more educated than I am, but education will also brain wash you to the point where you are no longer able to think for yourself, and you may find yourself reading from a script rather than creating ideas. Before you even respond to this, you may have to ask your commander on what to do next. I don't. I just say whatever comes to my mind. I don't need anyone's permission, and nothing is off limits for me to say. This isn't my job. I don't get paid to do this like you may be. This is where I may be in an advantaged situation by being less educated, because it's much easier for me to break free of the shackles and flee the plantation.

And you know what? Looking back at history, it wasn't always the intellectuals who won the war. China, Cuba, Viet Nam, the USSR were all won by the common people against a much more educated, richer, and sophisticated adversary.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that western regimes are just giving away foreign aid out of the kindness of their heart, and expect nothing back in return?
johnnyvbassist

Con

1. "The usage of citations makes a person less credible." If you asked any person in the world, educated or not, whether they want to hear merely your conjecture or the opinion of the expert, what to you think there response would be? I will leave it at that.

2. "I never said that Starbucks is forcing people to buy their coffee." Of course you did not. You said, "What ends up happening is that Singaporeans spend their hard earned cash on really expensive coffee, as opposed to home grown tea." It is as if you are saying that somehow the Singaporean did something wrong, and then you are claiming they are not. So which one is it? Corruption or no corruption the consumer still holds the power of their own cash.

3. The above point has little to nothing to do with foreign aid being another term for bribery. I believe that bribery does happen but that you cannot make those two terms interchangeable.

Conclusion: The only real point of debate you brought up in the previous round was "Do you think that western regimes are just giving away foreign aid out of the kindness of their heart, and expect nothing back in return?" You have a point their. However, this does not divine bribery. Bribery is when you give something to an individual or organisation with the explicit terms of getting a specific thing in return. I often think that the purpose of the foreign aid does have a lot to do with appearing a certain way rather than being a certain way. If the U.S. helps out Singapore, then America must be someone to associate with. But this is not bribery.

You have given no evidence to support your claim. You border on the lines of plagiarism because you will not cite sources and if you did not get it from a source then you are just making up stories in your head. It would be more credible to say "I heard something about" than to just state like its common knowledge.

Also, I suggest working on your conduct. You made personal attacks for no reason. I am not even slightly offended but I am concerned the others will be. Be respectful and you may have more support. Thank you for your time and thank you for allowing to engage in a conversation on a issue I have not debated on much.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Holy Fing $H!T you guys. Isn't this guy the greatest? God I love you man.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
Well ladies and gentlemen, pay attention to these fascists, assuming that it is even more than 1 person posting here on behalf of empire (as opposed to one shill with multiple "personas"). "Also you are not on this sites to have a debates so please don't start debates." In other words, if you want to challenge empire, don't come online, because the internet is only for pro-western imperialist propaganda. Yea, let the shills come online posting pro-empire debates, and then quote a whole bunch of sources from corrupt quackademics from Harvard, and Oxbridge to legitimise their bogus claims. Isn't that why the U.S. regime invented the internet in the first place? Psy-warfare. God forbid anyone come on here telling people to challenge empire. Haha. You see, unlike you fascists, I don't care if I lost the debate. Using multiple accounts to vote for yourself doesn't really say much about your argument. You winning this debate shows how desprate you are to control perception. While you may accuse other regimes of being totalitarian, your actions on this website, and many others shows one thing... Western regimes are the totalitarians.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Well you did succeed in enlightening me mouse. You taught me that your a retard. So thank you. I'm enlightened.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
You are only here to rant and talk bs without proof. If someone doesn't agree with you then "HE IS PAID BY THE GOVERNEMNT!". You lost all your debates. " THE GOVERNEMNT VOTED FOR THE OTHER GUY!"
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
OH YEAH! I AM PAID BY THE GOVERNEMENT! bwahhaahaahh I am mind controlling everyone. Also you are not on this sites to have a debates so please don't start debates.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
im on this site to enlighten people. the opposite of what you are doing. im obviously not here to enlighten you, because youre a lost cause. i'm here for the same reason you are, except we're on opposite sides of the fence. there will always be someone reading this who might get liberated by my ideas. just as there might be someone who reads your statements and gets duped, and believe that the u.s and european regimes gives out foreign aid out of the goodness of their hearts. im paid by the trolls? well, lets see, i am against the establishment (not controlled dissent either). the establishment is the one with the money. you are coming on here defending the establishment. so who's the one getting paid?
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
Why are you on this website if you think everyone are paid by the government. Go to a website with retarded people and hardcore christians.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
anonymouse you are paid by the trolls to come and troll us! We are all sheep ERHMGERD. It's time for us to make the NWO. Come on Obama!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
See! See! There he goes. Anyone who challenges his way of thinking Is just an evil government agent payed to come online and stop him from spreading his idiotic BS... I mean truth. It's such a great defense mechanism.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
unwarranted source? lol. it's interesting to see how you get so angry over that. how about when kerry accuses Asad of "using chemical weapons?" i dont see you getting so angry over that accusation. how about when your man colin powell accused Sadam of having wmd? and the accusations against the Chinese cyber attacks? wheres the warranted source? you see, the u.s regime aggressively acts on a regular basis with unwarranted sources, thats what makes the regime so dispicable. whats worse is that they need to hire shills in order to legitimise their own corruption. like i always say, if youre innocent, then why all the shills (assuming its more than 1 bloke behind all these pro-establishment names)? the wackiest thing i hear is when u.s soldiers tell me they invaded Iraq because of 9/11. we;re not in the third grade anymore. who are you kidding?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
anonymousejohnnyvbassistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states that citation make you less credible. I think Pro is missing the fact that even within the vague notion of the "establishment," there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, and I am certain that there are valid sources that would agree with Pro's positions. At the point that Pro fails to do any research, I find it hard to take many of his assertions seriously because they need proof. This means that I go Con on sources and the substance of the actual points presented. Con was also more civil; Pro, please keep in mind that expressing your opinions is fine, just do so in a cordial manner. Personal attacks are not only logical fallacies indicative of desperation, but they are unnecessary if you have decent points to make. Con wins, hands down.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
anonymousejohnnyvbassistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - although I think foreign aid does indeed lead to some sort of horse trading and is not at all altruistic, the charge of bribery is far too strong and far too specific.