The Instigator
Tmdog3758
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
GHOSTASSASSIN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Foreign aid

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...
Tmdog3758
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 62720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Tmdog3758

Con

We have problems input own country. Why should we help other countries if we have our own problems? Make ourselves perfect before we help others.
GHOSTASSASSIN

Pro

we should have foreign aid because we would be helping the world become a better place. We would also be giving food water and shelter to those who are not as fortunate as use. Think about the homless kids and families, or the kid with no family, we are giving hope to these people.
Debate Round No. 1
Tmdog3758

Con

Another reason why foreign aid is a waste of time.
Foreign aid has a long track record. The biggest upside appears to be the injection of large sums of money into developing countries otherwise gripped by poverty, war and conflict. For better or worse, that money should, in theory, improve lives and raise people out of poverty, leading to sustainable growth and development. The unfortunate truth, however, is that foreign aid has often presented more challenges than opportunities to aid recipients. In the sixty-plus years aid has been mandated by government " versus relying solely on private donations " we"ve seen small improvements across the globe, from reducing poverty to slowing population growth to curing and preventing diseases. Progress that otherwise would have been absent without an outpouring of foreign support.
So we can see we are putting toward those that need help, but when we need help they don't have the structure or support to help us back.
GHOSTASSASSIN

Pro

GHOSTASSASSIN forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Tmdog3758

Con

"Teem, I vant diss pamphlet to be my svansunk." My conversations with the great Professor Peter Bauer were always rather fraught. More than sixty years after leaving Budapest, he still spoke with a thick Hungarian accent. On top of that, he was now hard of hearing. And I mumble a lot. Our conversations tended to be a bit stilted.

We were going through the proofs of his Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, "50 Years of Failure", in which he elegantly summarised his life"s work analysing the futile " and often disastrous " consequences of international aid.

It was Bauer who had come up with the memorable description of aid as "Poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries." ("I do not remember saying zat. But I am glad zat people think I did.")

He was far from well. Eventually I worked out what he had said: "I want this pamphlet to be my swansong". I muttered some meaningless reassurances. "NO! Zat is not true. I am dyink."

I tried to change the subject. The pamphlet might have made the case against foreign aid brilliantly, I suggested. But was it politically possible? I asked hesitantly. This only made things worse.

"You should not be vorried about zat! Zat is for the politicians." His tone suggested that this was not a class he thought highly of. "You above all must, in ze words of ze newspaper, speek troose unto power."

I was reminded of this conversation after seeing Melanie Phillips on Question Time last week when she made the case for abolishing DfID (the UK Department for International Development) with her customary clarity, fearlessness and vigour.

For today the case against aid is stronger than ever..

At a time of economic crisis, we are spending "6.5 billion on DfID this year, a figure budgeted to increase to "11.5 billion in 2014/15. It is surely right to ask why we are doing this when we continue to face real and desperate poverty in this country?

Remember that there are parts of Glasgow where life expectancy is lower than in the Gambia or the Gaza strip. And we all now surely recognise that the great leaps forward in fighting global poverty have come from free trade, good government and technological development, not aid.

But why stop with abolishing DfID? Last year, we also spent "18 billion a year on our contributions to the EU. And another "5 billion a year fighting a war which we know that we won"t win in Afghanistan. And another "12 billion in subsidies and loans which we probably won"t see again to prop up the euro and Ireland.

Now, it is debatable whether spending money in these ways is in our national interest. But what is clear, according to various opinion polls, is that cutting back on them would be popular. Billions would be saved. And this could be used for really useful things, like reversing the proposed "29 million " million, not billion " cuts to the World Service.

Or buying some planes to go on our aircraft carriers. Or greatly expanding and improving UK trade missions to the developing world and the Commonwealth. We would have fewer maimed and killed soldiers. Better defences. Stronger relations with the rest of the world. And enough saved to make a substantial dent in the deficit.

But there is a problem. These ideas may be popular in the country, but they are abhorred by the political class. This would all be "isolationist", "extremist", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "bonkers" even.

Maybe the political classes would be right. But remember what they said about anyone opposing the UK"s entry into the euro. They too were "isolationist", "extremist", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "bonkers".

But who looks "bonkers" now?

Tim Knox is Acting Director of the Centre for Policy Studies www.cps.org.uk
http://www.thecommentator.com...
GHOSTASSASSIN

Pro

GHOSTASSASSIN forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
Your entire third round was an article copy/pasted from a source. Technically, this isn't plagiarism, but it's not even your argument. This is a pathetically weak way to structure debates.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Plagiarism once again. Stop doing this.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Plagiarism once again. Stop doing this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Tmdog3758GHOSTASSASSINTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Tmdog3758GHOSTASSASSINTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: cons arguments were weak as hell but pro forfeited every round regardless