It is better to focus charitable giving on the developing world than to give locally
Debate Rounds (3)
First, the reason that people give their time and money to charity is so that they can make a positive impact with it. Even if you argue that some people donate for personal recognition, that recognition can only be maximized if their charitable giving was effective in making a strong impact. Therefore, the first standard to determine the winner should be what makes the bigger impact: local or global giving.
The second standard to adopt is a moral one. When we say "it is better..." in the context of this debate, it should include more than just pragmatic reasons. Therefore, I think it is within the scope of our discussion to prove on moral grounds why it is better to give locally or globally.
Let's start with the first standard:
There is a huge disparity in the standard of living between wealthy countries (where this debate is most relevant) and the developing world (1). Based on the Law of Diminishing Utility, we can judge that developed countries do not experience the same impact from a donation that would be possible in a developing countries.
From a moral perspective, Rawls' veil of ignorance and utilitarianism are the most objective standards of morality. Given that the developing world is much worse off than wealthy nations and we can positively impact more lives there with the same resources, there is a moral obligation to give there, rather than at home.
Although there are claims of inefficiency and corruption in developing countries, even by accounting for those impact leaks, it is still a larger impact.
On your claims of "The need is present locally[...]":
-Branko Mianovic (1), World Bank economist, shows that the US has a much lesser slope of inequality compared to other countries. And "the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68% of the worlds inhabitants."
- This report (2) by the Heritage Foundation has some interesting facts about the poor people in America. "80% of poor households have air conditioning." "97% of poor households have a color television." This is NOT true in other countries.
-The Brookings Institute (3) says "If we used the exact same criteria to measure poverty in the US [...] we would conclude that no one in the US falls under the $2 [per day] threshold."
Regarding your point about the cycle of poverty and gateway to success, those apply in a greater scale if your starting point is lower (which I've proven it is if you look beyond American borders).
Your claim "we must serve their [local community] needs first" but offer no reason as to why. Veil of Ignorance addresses this anyways.
Your claim of a local community "is able to develop the means to support global concerns" has no proof. Even if it did, you're only proving that local would be a means to an end, and global is better. And communities are already primed to support global concerns given global inequality.
sjpate3 forfeited this round.
sutariachintan forfeited this round.
sjpate3 forfeited this round.
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.