The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

Giving Away Foreign Aid to Africa is a Good Idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,858 times Debate No: 7802
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

mongeese

Con

Countries from around the world are sending aid to Africa because they apparently need the money, because they are largely a third-world continent. However, this is only destroying their economy and politics, due to corruption and foreign reliance.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

The most important thing to know is that foreign aid is not merely monetary. The aid given to Africa comes in many forms and has yielded positive results empirically. With rejection of an affirmative ballot, you reject all aid given to the continent of Africa and thereby reject the needs of many human beings.

Observation 1: Success

"The largest U.S. foreign aid program fighting the AIDS epidemic has cut the diseases death toll by 1.2 million from 2004 to 2007 in a dozen hard-hit African countries, researchers said.

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, started by President George W. Bush in 2003, lowered the AIDS death rate on average by 10.5 percent a year in those countries, said author Eran Bendavid of Stanford University in a study published online today in the Annals of Internal Medicine"

http://www.bloomberg.com...

Not only has the United States helped in the world of AIDs but in the world of malaria. Because of these things the people of Africa are finally feeling hope for once in their lives and with further public health assistance the continent of Africa may stand on its two feet with a functioning economy and a player in the world economy.

Observation 2: They have oil

Even if they are dependent on us, we can take their oil. They think were helping them out but we are really just taking their oil. This is a good thing for America and is therefore a good idea.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate, fresno.

Observation 1: Success

For one thing, the U.S. government is already plunging into debt. The role of a government is to govern its own country, not another country. Furthermore, the only reason that Africa has an AIDS epidemic is because of the United Nation's attempt to rid Africa of polio.

From the Encyclopedia Idiotica:
"Not just in Africa, but in other countries, it may have been customary to use the initial shipments as a base from which to increase the amount of vaccine being used. It is suggested that green monkeys or chimpanzee kidneys were used at the local level, both carriers of SIV-1, and that the vaccines therefore became contaminated with the virus the became HIV in humans."

So, it is a bad idea to try to help Africa with their diseases, because we just create more problems than we fix.

Observation 2: They have oil

Okay, the reasons that I gave for why not to send foreign aid for Africa were the detrimental effects for Africa. Abusing Africa's resources is not good for Africa, and thus falls into the category of Not a Good Idea. Also, the government does not get oil through foreign aid. American oil companies pay Africa (it's a purchase, not aid) for the rights to drill on their land. Trade and aid are two different things.

http://www.allbusiness.com...

Anadarko is not involved in foreign aid. It is involved in foreign investments.

And now, for even more reasons why aid hurts Africa:

For any sources referencing paragraphs, here is the article that I source: http://online.wsj.com...

Here is a list of events following foreign aid:

1. People around the world send billions of dollars in financial aid to Africa.
http://psdblog.worldbank.org...
(Paragraph 3)

From here, the money takes three different routes:

A. The Government

2. Any money that is sent to Africa in general goes through the government first, and the government taxes most or all of this money away from the people the money was intended to support.
(Paragraph 10)

3. With taxes from the financial aid, African governments have no need to tax their citizens.
(Paragraph 14)

4. "No taxation without representation."
http://www.u-s-history.com...

5. No representation without taxation.
(Inverse property)

6. Because Africa does not tax its citizens, it does not need to give its citizens representation.
(Step 6 + Step 4)

7. All that a corrupt African government needs to stay in power is a continuous flow of financial aid.
(Paragraph 14)

8. With this "free money", African governments do not bother to find more reliable and honest sources of income.
(Paragraph 15)

9. African governments become lazy and corrupt.
Lazy: encouraging inactivity or indolence
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Corrupt: to become morally debased
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
When a government is not giving its people any representation and is unfairly taxing foreign aid, it can be called corrupt.

B. The People

2. Some of the money from financial aid makes its way to the people.

3. Everyone in that part of Africa becomes a little bit richer.

4. When everyone has more money, monetary inflation occurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org......

5. Monetary inflation occurs in Africa.

6. The "Dutch disease" occurs in Africa.
(Paragraph 22)

7. Africa's goods become too expensive for export, and housing prices go up.
("Dutch disease")

Or, of course, foreign companies can send Africa aid in the form of food:

1. The rest of the world sends money to Africa in the form of food.
(Paragraph 21)

2. People who already have food don't need to buy more food.

3. Africans have food.
(Step 2)

4. Africans don't buy any food from African farmers.

5. African farmers no longer sell any food.

6. African farmers no longer get any profit.
(Businesses need to sell their products to maintain a profit.)

7. African farmers go out of business.
(A lack of profit leads to bankruptcy.)

8. Africa no longer has its own farms.

9. Africa relies on the rest of the world for food.
(They can't get any from Africa.)

10. Africa becomes dependent on the rest of the world.

And so, when we send money to Africa, their governments gain more power, their economy experiences inflation, and they take a step backwards as they no longer can afford to farm.

Another example of this effect can be seen in the original article:
"Even what may appear as a benign intervention on the surface can have damning consequences. Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa. Say he employs 10 people who together manufacture 500 nets a week. Typically, these 10 employees support upward of 15 relatives each. A Western government-inspired program generously supplies the affected region with 100,000 free mosquito nets. This promptly puts the mosquito net manufacturer out of business, and now his 10 employees can no longer support their 150 dependents. In a couple of years, most of the donated nets will be torn and useless, but now there is no mosquito net maker to go to. They'll have to get more aid. And African governments once again get to abdicate their responsibilities."

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

My case.

Success- He says "the USfg is already in debt" and "the UN gave Africa AIDs with the polio vaccine"

1. The USfg has a foreign budget set aside with many government programs that have the funding to help other countries. I'm not calling for an increase in aid, just proving that aid in itself is good. You are missing the point of the argument and lose because of it. Essentially what I am saying is that the USfg has been able to help the African people before, look to the decrease in AIDs and malaria. This translates into a better economy for them. When all of their people aren't dying of disease they can begin to grow food on farms and many other essential jobs. This couldn't be done 10 years ago because of the people dying of disease.. Say the African farmer gets sick with an non lethal bout of malaria, how can he farm his crop? He can't. The aid going to Africa has bettered the African economy empirically.

Malia Politzer says "Africa's rate of economic growth increased, averaging 5% in 2005. Some countries experienced still higher growth rates"

If you remember, the presidents PMI was started in 2003 and only 2 years later we already saw an increase in their economy. History is on my side. When we helped the African people with specialized aid, such as aid to disease, their economy has gotten better. This is going to be key in todays round because we now understand that not all aid to africa is bad. And when monetary aid can be bad, specialized aid can be good. The resolution says "foreign aid" and i have proven that some types of foreign aid is good for the well being of the African people and you can only vote pro because of it.

2- Polio vaccine.

This irrelevant tidbit of knowledge you wanted to sound cool with sharing actually hurts you in the round. Wouldn't you agree that the UN now has a moral obligation to fix the wrong they created? Any moral human would. This one example of how health aid failed does not mean that all health aid fails. I have proven that our aid has worked in the past. Do not assume that all aid will fail because it failed once. Michael Jordan has missed a free throw but that doesnt mean he will miss the rest in the future.

Oil-

The thing is that the African people will be more inclined to help America with oil if we are cool with the governments there. If they think that we have turned our backs on them, the will not grace us with their oil. China is spending a bunch of money down there helping them and are getting oil in return. The US can do this to. Abusing Africa's resources? Really? Saving the lives of their people so that they will be inclined to sell us oil is completely moral.

Then he talks about how monetary aid is bad. Sure, monetary aid can be bad. However, going down with a group of people to build a school in Africa is a perfectly good idea. Paying teachers to teach African children is a perfectly good idea. Contraceptives, Family Planning centers, Insecticide treated bednets, clean water, building wells. All of these things can be done positively for the African people. Therefore foreign aid to Africa can be a good thing and you have to vote pro.

Then he gives a flawed example. This is why it is flawed.

The African people can't afford to pay for an insecticide treated net. This is the reason why they are not covering Africa to begin with. This is what prompted the USfg to start sending free ones. However, even though his argument is flawed because the people cant pay for them in the first place.. he further loses given the fact we can send vouchers to redeem a net at a local distribution center. If the USfg gave aid in this form not only would it stimulate their economy by helping the ITN dealers, but it would save lives. This is another example of how aid can help Africa.

At this point it is clear aid can be good to Africa. In no way is every form of aid good, but aid can be good.

Have fun.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

And fun I shall have. Thank you for responding so quickly.

"The USfg has a foreign budget set aside with many government programs that have the funding to help other countries."

However, the government should not have such a fund in its budget, because as I said earlier, a proper government governs its own people, and does not support an entirely separate people.

"Say the African farmer gets sick with an non lethal bout of malaria, how can he farm his crop? He can't. The aid going to Africa has bettered the African economy empirically."

However, nobody will buy his crop, because of food being sent to Africa, and the farmed crop becomes useless.

"This irrelevant tidbit of knowledge you wanted to sound cool with sharing actually hurts you in the round. Wouldn't you agree that the UN now has a moral obligation to fix the wrong they created? Any moral human would. This one example of how health aid failed does not mean that all health aid fails. I have proven that our aid has worked in the past. Do not assume that all aid will fail because it failed once. Michael Jordan has missed a free throw but that doesnt mean he will miss the rest in the future."

What I'm saying is that the UN is known to mess up, and sooner or later, this will become one of those messed-up projects. And an entire continent will be shattered by it.

"The thing is that the African people will be more inclined to help America with oil if we are cool with the governments there. If they think that we have turned our backs on them, the will not grace us with their oil. China is spending a bunch of money down there helping them and are getting oil in return. The US can do this to. Abusing Africa's resources? Really? Saving the lives of their people so that they will be inclined to sell us oil is completely moral."

In that case, we aren't really giving away aid. We are buying rights to their oil with money. As this is no longer aid being "given away", it becomes irrelevant to this debate.

"Sure, monetary aid can be bad."

Exactly. This quote wins me the debate.

"However, going down with a group of people to build a school in Africa is a perfectly good idea. Paying teachers to teach African children is a perfectly good idea. Contraceptives, Family Planning centers, Insecticide treated bednets, clean water, building wells. All of these things can be done positively for the African people."

If only the money actually got to where it was intended to go...
http://online.wsj.com...

"The African people can't afford to pay for an insecticide treated net. This is the reason why they are not covering Africa to begin with. This is what prompted the USfg to start sending free ones. However, even though his argument is flawed because the people cant pay for them in the first place.. he further loses given the fact we can send vouchers to redeem a net at a local distribution center. If the USfg gave aid in this form not only would it stimulate their economy by helping the ITN dealers, but it would save lives. This is another example of how aid can help Africa."

The fact is, the aid just put an entrepreneur out of business, and plunged 150 people into unemployment and poverty. When the UN is the only supplier of nets to Africa, Africa no longer knows how to make nets; thus, they just forgot one of the most important aspects of their survival, and now rely on the UN. Africa's foreign dependence is dangerous. Now, I'd be able to refute your argument about ITN dealers, but I don't have a clue what ITN is supposed to stand for. And what exactly is this "voucher" system that you speak of?

"At this point it is clear aid can be good to Africa. In no way is every form of aid good, but aid can be good."

Aid can be good, but the majority of it, or the majority of what can actually be said to be free foreign aid, is bad. Thus, giving away foreign aid to Africa is a bad idea.

Here's to a good debate.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

mm-hmm

"However, the government should not have such a fund in its budget, because as I said earlier, a proper government governs its own people, and does not support an entirely separate people"

Theres no reason why aid to Africa throws off U.S. isolationism. This was out the window as of World War 1, the US gets involved in other places. It is what it is. Whether we let the people of Africa die or not, the US will have influence around the entire world. However, aid to Africa actually benefits everyday citizens. The US is the world hegemon and tells the world what to do. When the US gets involved in humanitarian efforts, our image is made better. The terrorist problems going on in the middle east is because of hate of Americans due to our hegemony. When we increase our soft power with these humanitarian efforts we halt the chance of another terrorist attack on American soil because of the newly converted African terrorists. This is a definite issue, terrorist organizations are already recruiting in Africa. Not only this, but we have to have influence in the region being that China could easily control most of Africa in the not too far off future. Aid to Africa needs to be done and a foreign policy budget is inevitable.

"However, nobody will buy his crop, because of food being sent to Africa, and the farmed crop becomes useless"

Even if you believe you won the argument saying food becomes useless, at least there is the crop for the farmer and his family to eat. The bottom line is that without taking away disease they will never be able to farm for themselves. In the world that we give no aid at all they will still die of disease and starve to death because theres no food on the market. At least with this directed aid we are able to allow them to survive on their own.

"What I'm saying is that the UN is known to mess up, and sooner or later, this will become one of those messed-up projects. And an entire continent will be shattered by it."

You have no warrant to make this claim. I also showed how US action has been successful, the UN, WHO, and other countries have all done things successfully in Africa meaning that aid can work. Warrant this argument and don't make empty claims.

"In that case, we aren't really giving away aid. We are buying rights to their oil with money. As this is no longer aid being "given away", it becomes irrelevant to this debate"

You miss the point. The point is that the use of aid is the only way to win the hearts of the African people, thus win rights to their oil. Meaning aid is a good idea because it leads to oil in the future.

"Exactly. This quote wins me the debate."

haha no. i've proven countless methods of aid to be effective. the round shouldnt be evaluated based on monetary aid and only monetary aid.

"If only the money actually got to where it was intended to go..."

Building a house with your own two hands isnt monetary aid that the government can horde. Neither is paying an individual teacher to teach children in Africa. The government isnt going to horde a bunch of condoms and even if they do, the high government officials are bound to use them. At least AIDs wont spread in the government. haha. Building a family planning center with American workers cant be taken by the government. When we pass out ITNS (insecticide treated nets) to African people, it gets to them and this is empirically proven. By providing the individuals in Africa we get away from their dependence for water on the government. The government cant seize a well that Americans built. This well is forever there and a source of water for a long time. All of these methods can work. Even if 1 can work i have proven that sometimes aid can be good, this is all that matters.

"The fact is, the aid just put an entrepreneur out of business, and plunged 150 people into unemployment and poverty. When the UN is the only supplier of nets to Africa, Africa no longer knows how to make nets; thus, they just forgot one of the most important aspects of their survival, and now rely on the UN. Africa's foreign dependence is dangerous. Now, I'd be able to refute your argument about ITN dealers, but I don't have a clue what ITN is supposed to stand for. And what exactly is this "voucher" system that you speak of?"

Not if we used the voucher system. An ITN would be an insecticide treated net that they put over their beds at night so mosquitos cant get to them. The voucher system would ensure the bednets are still made in africa and there is no dependence at all.

"Aid can be good, but the majority of it, or the majority of what can actually be said to be free foreign aid, is bad. Thus, giving away foreign aid to Africa is a bad idea."

Being that I, a 16 year old kid from Fresno California, can point out multiple ways that would work and help the african people immensely means that it doesnt take too much intelligence to know that we can find ways to actually benefit africa. Of course there are things that we can do that will backfire, but that is true everywhere. Congress will pick the ways that are sure to work, or close to it. That would be like the resolution says "helping children is a good thing" and you arguing "giving kids weed to smoke isnt good, therefore i have proven 1 way that helping children is not good so i win".
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Con

I have to say, this is the best debate I have been in to date.

"Theres no reason why aid to Africa throws off U.S. isolationism. This was out the window as of World War 1, the US gets involved in other places. It is what it is. Whether we let the people of Africa die or not, the US will have influence around the entire world. However, aid to Africa actually benefits everyday citizens. The US is the world hegemon and tells the world what to do. When the US gets involved in humanitarian efforts, our image is made better. The terrorist problems going on in the middle east is because of hate of Americans due to our hegemony. When we increase our soft power with these humanitarian efforts we halt the chance of another terrorist attack on American soil because of the newly converted African terrorists. This is a definite issue, terrorist organizations are already recruiting in Africa. Not only this, but we have to have influence in the region being that China could easily control most of Africa in the not too far off future. Aid to Africa needs to be done and a foreign policy budget is inevitable."

Here is an excerpt from George Washington's farewell address:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."
http://en.wikisource.org...

This is the disaster that is waiting to happen with Africa. We are sending them money, and people, and food, and countless other items, but it's all going to blow up in our faces. Washington warned us of this. We should have listened to him. And what, exactly, makes a foreign policy budget inevitable?

"Even if you believe you won the argument saying food becomes useless, at least there is the crop for the farmer and his family to eat. The bottom line is that without taking away disease they will never be able to farm for themselves. In the world that we give no aid at all they will still die of disease and starve to death because theres no food on the market. At least with this directed aid we are able to allow them to survive on their own."

Subsistence farming? Well, that means that the farmer will slowly spiral into debt, and contributes nothing to society. And someone who never contributes to society doesn't deserve anything from society.

"You have no warrant to make this claim."

Here are my warrants:
http://www.philforhumanity.com...
http://www.globalsecurity.org...
http://www.kuro5hin.org...
They are the UN failures. The UN is a failure.

"You miss the point. The point is that the use of aid is the only way to win the hearts of the African people, thus win rights to their oil. Meaning aid is a good idea because it leads to oil in the future."

Then we aren't really giving away aid; we're in a bidding war with other countries over their oil.

"Building a house with your own two hands isnt monetary aid that the government can horde. Neither is paying an individual teacher to teach children in Africa. The government isnt going to horde a bunch of condoms and even if they do, the high government officials are bound to use them. At least AIDs wont spread in the government. haha. Building a family planning center with American workers cant be taken by the government. When we pass out ITNS (insecticide treated nets) to African people, it gets to them and this is empirically proven. By providing the individuals in Africa we get away from their dependence for water on the government. The government cant seize a well that Americans built. This well is forever there and a source of water for a long time. All of these methods can work. Even if 1 can work i have proven that sometimes aid can be good, this is all that matters."

So, we're helping them get water so that they don't have to rely on their own government for water? Brilliant. Instead of relying on their incompetent government, they rely on us, and then their governments get even more incompetent.

"Not if we used the voucher system. An ITN would be an insecticide treated net that they put over their beds at night so mosquitos cant get to them. The voucher system would ensure the bednets are still made in africa and there is no dependence at all."

However, I don't know what the voucher system is. I ask again, what in the world is it?

"That would be like the resolution says 'helping children is a good thing' and you arguing 'giving kids weed to smoke isnt good, therefore i have proven 1 way that helping children is not good so i win'."

Well, that's how the "Breathing is Good for You" and "Poison is Bad for You" debates ended.

Thanks for this debate; I look forward to your next response.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

Backfire- We assume were talking about US aid. The aid can come from the hearts of the citizens, therefore government involvement becomes irrelevant. The government has been able to help out in the past and can help out in the future. That is a fact here today. These theoretical arguments he brings up and proven false empirically.

Subsistence farming- No. I'm saying we can keep them alive, away from disease, therefore they can farm. If we dont, they will get sick and are not be able to farm. This has been proven to be true. This argument goes completely conceded and I win because of it. I have proven that helping fight disease in the country is good.

UN fails- This doesnt mean that aid in theory is bad. Not only that, they may have failed on other instances but i have shown that they have done good things for africa in the past. This went unanswered.

Bidding war- It is aid, even if it is just for selfish reasons. This is a good thing that comes because of the aid we give. On top of the increase in soft power around the world that went unanswered. The soft power we gain is also a positive to giving aid and proves giving aid is a good idea, if even for no other reason. I win on this dropped argument alone.

"their gov gets more incompetent"- haha thats a big assumption.. Perhaps we keep alive the citizens who then have the power to overthrow their suppressive governments. It's not that the African governments are stupid as you seem to think.. But the governments are these suppressive machines that dont care about their citizens and hold them down so that they remain in power. Giving power back to the people is the only way to overthrow these governments.

Voucher system- Is exactly what it sounds like. We give out vouchers to a bunch of people in Africa which allows them to redeem an ITN with only the voucher in return. The ITN company then gives the vouchers to the US representative that is in the area who pays the African company the money that each voucher is worth. This way the African company still makes the nets and money so that they keep all the benefits and we dont just flood the country with nets. The reason ITNs arent in africa without them being sent is because the citizens cant afford them. Giving them the vouchers allows them to get the nets that are proven to save their lives.

By this point it is evident that aid can be good for the African people. Vote pro
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Con

"We assume were talking about US aid. The aid can come from the hearts of the citizens, therefore government involvement becomes irrelevant. The government has been able to help out in the past and can help out in the future. That is a fact here today. These theoretical arguments he brings up and proven false empirically."

Well, the U.S. is the only country we've talked about so far. And by "citizens", if you aren't talking about the U.S., the only other place we've mentioned is Africa, and that would be domestic aid, not foreign aid. And I don't even understand your sentence fragment at the end.

"Subsistence farming- No. I'm saying we can keep them alive, away from disease, therefore they can farm. If we dont, they will get sick and are not be able to farm. This has been proven to be true. This argument goes completely conceded and I win because of it. I have proven that helping fight disease in the country is good."

It has not gone completely conceded; we were just arguing it last round. Additionally, Africa is overpopulated right now, and maybe a huge bunch of their population should die off, just to prevent too much overpopulation.

"UN fails- This doesnt mean that aid in theory is bad. Not only that, they may have failed on other instances but i have shown that they have done good things for africa in the past. This went unanswered."

It didn't go unanswered. You asked for a reason why I can say that the UN will fail, and in addition to the polio vaccine failure, I cited three other failures. It's a bad idea to do something if the failures outweigh the success.

"Bidding war- It is aid, even if it is just for selfish reasons. This is a good thing that comes because of the aid we give. On top of the increase in soft power around the world that went unanswered. The soft power we gain is also a positive to giving aid and proves giving aid is a good idea, if even for no other reason. I win on this dropped argument alone."

I didn't drop this argument, either. I accused it of not being given away; we are trying to get their government to give us oil in exchange for aid. This is like India

"'their gov gets more incompetent'- haha thats a big assumption.. Perhaps we keep alive the citizens who then have the power to overthrow their suppressive governments. It's not that the African governments are stupid as you seem to think.. But the governments are these suppressive machines that dont care about their citizens and hold them down so that they remain in power. Giving power back to the people is the only way to overthrow these governments."

It is not just a large assumption. I proved that their government becomes lazy and corrupt because of aid, and you didn't complain, so we agreed. And pushing more aid isn't helping the people gain power, because the government gets a large chunk of the aid, and they're still making laws, whether they're incompetent or not. Any government gets overthrown eventually, but not if they're continuously supplied with money by foreign nations that aren't even aware of what they're doing.

"Voucher system- Is exactly what it sounds like. We give out vouchers to a bunch of people in Africa which allows them to redeem an ITN with only the voucher in return. The ITN company then gives the vouchers to the US representative that is in the area who pays the African company the money that each voucher is worth. This way the African company still makes the nets and money so that they keep all the benefits and we dont just flood the country with nets. The reason ITNs arent in africa without them being sent is because the citizens cant afford them. Giving them the vouchers allows them to get the nets that are proven to save their lives."

Okay. Now, I don't see that system actually being used at all, and googling (voucher Africa) (not in quotes or parentheses) only shows me some phone call vouchers and airplane vouchers. Even if this were in effect, they'd still be relying on us for their safety, and foreign reliance is something that everybody wants to avoid.

In conclusion, every form of aid to Africa has a huge downfall that only harms the African economy or American economy, and it is NOT a good idea to send foreign aid to Africa. "Sure, monetary aid can be bad." Vote CON. Thank you for your time.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

The bottom line is that I have proven aid to Africa is a good idea in multiple ways. Most of the arguments I made went completely unanswered. I am not tied down to a certain agent that must give the aid, these ideas for positive aid in itself win me the debate round. Look at the voucher system for ITNs. This idea embodies the overall fact that aid to Africa can be a good thing. Ignore the non-responsive negative arguments and look to the facts I have provided. When you do this, you see the only thing to do is vote pro.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
PRO's failure to really do anything in Round 5 made this an obvious victory for CON.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Posted by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
haha indeed you did not mongeese and i commend you for that.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
They'd still be relying on our money to stimulate their economy...

and at least I didn't just say, "Taco!"
Posted by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
you have no idea how I voted. I never once stated that I voted for the con or thought that they did the better job at debating. I merely said the con had a lot of missed opportunities on bad arguments that could have been capitalized on for an easy win.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
haha mongese, just because you google something and you don't find a website that talks about the voucher system doesn't mean its a bad idea. I explained that they wouldn't be dependent on us because we stimulated their industry.
masterzanzibar. it's illogical to vote a person down for presenting one argument that doesn't win the round, when multiple others do.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Okay, I did not just "taco" all of your arguments. Take the voucher, for example.

First, you introduced it:
"he further loses given the fact we can send vouchers to redeem a net at a local distribution center. If the USfg gave aid in this form not only would it stimulate their economy by helping the ITN dealers, but it would save lives. This is another example of how aid can help Africa."

Then I, confused, asked:
"And what exactly is this "voucher" system that you speak of?"
And then, instead of answering, you said:
"Not if we used the voucher system. An ITN would be an insecticide treated net that they put over their beds at night so mosquitos cant get to them. The voucher system would ensure the bednets are still made in africa and there is no dependence at all."

Still confused, I asked again:
"However, I don't know what the voucher system is. I ask again, what in the world is it?"

You finally gave an explanation:
"Voucher system- Is exactly what it sounds like. We give out vouchers to a bunch of people in Africa which allows them to redeem an ITN with only the voucher in return. The ITN company then gives the vouchers to the US representative that is in the area who pays the African company the money that each voucher is worth...."

And finally, I was able to respond to your statements:
"Okay. Now, I don't see that system actually being used at all, and googling (voucher Africa) (not in quotes or parentheses) only shows me some phone call vouchers and airplane vouchers. Even if this were in effect, they'd still be relying on us for their safety, and foreign reliance is something that everybody wants to avoid."

You then wrapped everything up with:
"The bottom line is that I have proven aid to Africa is a good idea in multiple ways. Most of the arguments I made went completely unanswered."
Posted by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
haha, your irrationality is amusing. this is a site for me, as well as you, to share our opinions. If no one really cares about my opinion, that means very little to me. similar to how much I care about your perceptions of how "awesome" my life is. however,my opinion does matter in the outcome of the round, for I am a peer who votes on who did the better debating. I totally agree with the notion that one must vote based on quality of argumentation, and not personal opinions. thus, I did not vote on my own personal opinions, but on who did the better debating, and other criteria set forth by the ballot or whatever you want to call it.
if you thought the oil argument was bad, then why did you bring it up in the first place as one of your only two contentions? and why did you continue to extend it throughout the round? it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. nor does the notion that making personal attacks against me somehow makes your arguments more legitimate.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, I know that I win for grammar and sources...
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Too bad you can't justify any reason to vote against me in the round. I would have gone for the oil argument in the end if i would have believed it at all, masterzanzibar. No one cares about your feedback if it is just a call for attention that makes no difference in the outcome of the round. Even though you think your arguments, that are mildly retarded, are correct, you don't vote based on your own flawed opinion; but what is said in the round. Go ahead and post arguments on random debates that you see if it makes you feel better about the pitiful life you live.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by brycef 7 years ago
brycef
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by narutofan19405 7 years ago
narutofan19405
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by HalakMushareff 7 years ago
HalakMushareff
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Bking 7 years ago
Bking
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 7 years ago
masterzanzibar
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
mongeesefresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07