Helping poorer countries
Debate Rounds (4)
I don't think this is a good topic to argue, but I need to do this.
Topic: We should help poorer countries by giving them things directly than giving them to the government.
I want no sources in this debate, and want an experienced debater.
1. No forfeits
2. No trolling
3. Be civil
Poor countries- Top 20 poor countries in (http://www.infoplease.com...)
government- the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.
Giving things such as money and things that poor countries NEED like education, etc.
Thanks to Tree for accepting this debate. We will have no sources in this debate, and there will also be 10,000 characters for us to write a lot. I will have a debate on this soon, but I don't think it'll be a good topic, so I wanted someone experienced to debate this with me, because I am a total noob in this topic. Let's start the debate then. (I will mostly give my example about Chad, because it is in the TOP 5 of poor countries)
II: My BoP
I have to show my BoP in two steps.
1) Show that we should not give money to the government to help the poorer countries
2) We should give things directly than giving them to the government.
If I complete 1 and 2, I totally win this debate. If I only completed one, but I performed better than my opponent, I always win this debate. I lose this debate if I performed worse than my opponent, and also if my BoP is not met, or my opponent's BoP is met. I will be making 2 arguments to fullfill my BoP.
1. Governments do not do their job
A governments job is to help people. They organize the city, as it says in the defintions. But, when the "rich" countries like the US and France give money, they would obviously give it to the government, obviously, because the people are lazy to actually give it to the school, they give it to the government. Take Chad for an example, it is the 5th poorest country in the list of the poorest countries (round 1.) There government is extremely bad. For example, let's say a "rich" country like Spain gives them lots of money to help their education, and to make their city and country better. But, the government gets the money, and most of the time, they just get it on their own, and give a *little* bit of money to the schools, and the people who need them. In a site (cannot say the source), it shows that Chad has one of the *worst* GDP in the world. This is because the average income does not get much money. But the government is quite decent, they are the *worst*, but more in the *middle*. This clearly proves my point, as I showed that the people in the government do not do their job.
So I have clearly proven the part of my BoP that we should not give the money to the government to give to the poor. We aren't giving the money for the government to spend on their own, we are just giving them the money because we will HELP the poor, not just let the government to satisfy themselves by getting money easily and by doing nothing.
2. What can we do?
1) There are many ways to solve this. First of all, we can give Money directly to the people, or we can just fix the government up. I believe that it will be easier to give the Money to the people DIRECTLY then fixing the government up. Poorer countries have to be better and richer again, so to do it efficiently and quickly, I think that giving the money directly will be easier, and that will be in my next subpoint.
2) This subpoint will be to show that giving money directly will be better. Fixing the government will obviously take a longer time, it is logical sense that we actually have to fix the whole government will be harder. And still, even though we can fix the government, there will *most likely* be that same case again, because they can't fix everyone. This will make this plan long and not as efficient as it needs to be.
However, if we give money directly, then there will be less cases of corruption, and bad things which will happen, almost zero because we have proof, and we are actually giving it to them, and not relying anyone else. This will be a efficient way to help the poorer countries such as Chad. It will be quicker, because you can do this anytime, ride an airplane, it will be *much* quicker than actually teaching and fixing the government up. It might be a difference of months or YEARS. We need to do these stuff quickly and efficiently, and giving them directly is the best we can do.
I have fullfilled my BoP by showing that the government is bad in poor countries, than it is very risky. This is one point which I have fullfiled my BoP. My second point was that giving it directly will be an easier and better way to do this. Because I have successfully fullfilled my BoP, please vote for Pro.
Onto Tree :)
I would first of all like to thank Fire for instigating this debate. I shall assume that my BoP is the direct opposite of Fire's. To win this debate I must:
1) Show that we should give money to the government to help the poorer countries
2) We should give things to the government rather than giving them directly to the people.
Practicality and Effectiveness
A government provides a unique platform from which to organize the distribution of resources. Pro's side is virtually impossible to implement without spending an obscene amound of money on each of the countries above listed. If the United States government or that of any other affluent country were to bequeath a sum of money on a third-world country for the purpose of improving the living standard there (education, clean drinking water, etc.) they would not be able to effectively put Pro's plan into place. Giving money to "the people" will of course result in each person receiving a (likely small) amount of private property with which they may be able to slightly improve their prospects in some way or another. So we have an alternative: give the aid money as public property to the government of the benefactor. This way the money is consolidated and it could be put to use on much bigger projects that will benefit the public as a whole rather than benefiting to some smaller degree the private individual. Let's say we have a third-world country with a lack of clean water. If we distribute the money to the people of said country, nobody will be able to have stable access to clean drinking water because such a project takes more money than would be given to one person. If we give the money to the government, lots of money is in the hands of one entity, which it can then use to obtain clean water for a large portion of the population--something you most definitely could not do if the money were to be equally distributed amongst everybody.
This also presents an organizational nightmare. One would have to find ways to distribute the money into a poor country, quite possibly having to deal with the threat of violence, and then one must find a way to equally distribute the money to the people. If we give money to the government directly, we have a much safer mode of transfer without having to deal with distribution and government allows us to use money more efficiently to serve a greater good.
This shall conclude my arguments for this round. I do believe I have fulfilled my burden of proof; as such, I urge you to vote for Con.
Looking forward to your responses!
I thank my opponent for making my arguments. I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments.
My opponent basically makes his argument about private and public. As I said, public is an automatic "no", because the government doesn't help and for example, give all the money and water to the public, they just keep it for themselves. The government already has a job, and has at least more wealth than the average person in Chad, or any other place. However, if we give it to schools, and all that, it will have much more benefit because the school will use these supplies and money to provide better education, and make school life better.
In some situations, they are both private, but in some situations, giving it directly will be better, because we can give money to every school, and to the poor so they can have it, or we give it to the government, and only they will have it. Our purpose of giving money is to help the poor, but we aren't exactly helping the poor in that situation, just helping the government, who doesn't help the country because they want to live in a happy life.
I have refuted my opponent's arguments, please vote for PRO!!!
I shall be quoting key points from my opponent's argument and refuting them here.
"Take Chad for an example, it is the 5th poorest country in the list...there [sic] government is extremely bad."
Pro uses a specific example despite the general question of how to give money to countries in need. The problem with this statement is that Pro picks a specific country to answer a general question. For this statement to work, Pro must prove, without sources as per the rules, that poor government is inherent in less wealthy countries and that it is logically impossible for a poor country to have a high-quality or at least a functioning government. Until Pro can prove that government will inherently be bad, corrupt, weak, or nonfunctioning if the country is poor, Pro's whole argument is invalid.
"We aren't giving the money for the government to spend on their own, we are just giving them the money because we will HELP the poor, not just let the government to [sic] satisfy themselves by getting money easily and by doing nothing."
There is another way to mitigate this. A country could give a certain amount to another for the purpose of improving, let's say, an education system. The benefactor country would perhaps allot a small amount of money and specify a purpose for said money. The government may then send diplomats or some other representative of itself to said country and evaluate the country's progress. If the progress is deemed unsatisfactory by the benefactor, then the country would stop donations immediately. If it was deemed satisfactory, then donations would be continued until the specified purpose, in this case education, was completed.
"Fixing the government will obviously take a longer time, it is logical sense that [if] we actually have to fix the whole government [it] will be harder."
I completely agree. A rich and powerful country attempting to meddle (even with good intentions) in another country's government will not be seen in good light, nor is it particularly acheivable in most cases. So here we have two choices: donate money to the government with the system outlined above, or give it directly to "the people." The latter choice would take an immense amount of organization, and additionally it will waste lots of money on transportation that could be used for a better purpose. A government system is more reliable and thousands of times more efficient and more likely to make real positive change; thus we should obviously donate directly to the government when considering foreign aid.
I believe I have gotten to all of Pro's key points. Over to Fire for his rebuttals :)
Thanks for Tree to have this debate. It was quite fun. I will be making my defense, and conclusion
"Pro uses a specific example despite the general question of how to give money to countries in need. The problem with this statement is that Pro picks a specific country to answer a general question."
That was just an example. In the later part of the argument, I said about in general, but I talked about Chad to make an example, to make it more realistic. Many other of the poor countries, maybe all have the same problem. My argument is still valid because I showed an example to prove my point without sources, and I did talk about in general. Vote for Pro.
"The government may then send diplomats or some other representative of itself to said country and evaluate the country's progress."
The problem is, and as I said, the government would not do any of this at the beginning because they want to save their own lives, and making their lives happier. So they will not do any of this, and will not even try to make the government better. It isn't about two methods, it's about if we should give it directly, or to the government. And the government is a bad one, so vote for Pro.
Con says that giving it directly will be slower, but this is false, because there are already tons of organizations which already do this, and it will be much harder to fix the government up. We might waste some money by transportation, but at least that is not all, because the government makes the money get wasted for all (except for the government)
Because I have shown clear reasons why we should give things directly, please vote for Pro!!!
Thanks to you as well.
"Public is an automatic "no", because the government doesn't help and for example, give all the money and water to the public, they just keep it for themselves."
This is an assertion without evidence. This debate is about if, as a principle, we should give money to the government or to the people when considering foreign aid. Pro's attempt to link poverty to bad or corrupt government does not satisfy his burden of proof because he has not shown that poor countries will always have poor governments or that a poor country can never have a fully functional government. Seeing as most if not all of his argument is based upon this shaky and unproven premise, Pro has failed to fulfill his BoP.
"...giving it directly will be better, because we can give money to every school, and to the poor so they can have it, or we give it to the government, and only they will have it."
It would be the government's role to distribute the money to schools or the extremely poor. Using my solution outlined above, any existing corruption would be avoided and the money could be more efficiently distributed. Since it would then be consolidated, more good in the form of public services could be done.
Pro has failed to satisfy his BoP. Distributing money amongst the people would be terribly inefficient and ineffective, while giving money to the government while implementing my system above would be much more effective and reliable. As such, I urge y'all to vote for Con.
Thanks for the debate Fire! :)
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.