Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to hear what the opposition has to say first.
I am thrilled to accept this debate and will be arguing that we should support the Kony 2012 campaign charity program
Other than that,
For starters, Invisible Children, the charity has been and still is being sued for improper usage of their NPO license. The charity is flawed, the fact that IC keeps 75% of the proceeds shows how much they actually send toward the African issues they support. A scrap, a measley segment, 25%. Yet most of it ends up in the hands of their government.
In addition to the corrupt charity, the U.S economy is in the gutter. This campaign is meant for raising awareness, yet many people are attempting to start a petition to the government to send soldiers to Uganda. This issue has been raging on since 1986, yet all of the sudden becoming popular. One problem that people are aware of is our economical state.
15 trillion dollars in debt is quite a deep hole for a country to be in, allocating our resources elsewhere will put an even larger dent in our debt. How can our nation expect to continue this role of "police man of the world" if our economy collapses. We should focus on our own issues before dealing with other countries.
"The charity is flawed, the fact that IC keeps 75% of the proceeds shows how much they actually send toward the African issues they support."
40% goes to Central African programs, the other 60% go to other worthy causes, primarily to promote awareness, as seen in the picture below and the link it came from
So its a legit charity, if that doesnt do it for you still, this isnt the only charity open to fighting the war against child soldiers, so if youre against Kony 2012 only because you think (falsely) that Kony 2012 is a bad charity, browse around there are several other legit charities available to fight Kony....
" yet many people are attempting to start a petition to the government to send soldiers to Uganda"
This campaign is to rally the public to get Congress to still keep the 100 soldiers they sent over there to stay. NOWHERE in the video does it advocate for all out US intervention it is only a campaign to get support for the US to continue its already limited intervention in the area. Also keep in mind that the troops over there arent even there to fight, they are only advisers there to help other troops from African countries coordinate to try to take down Kony.
"15 trillion dollars in debt is quite a deep hole for a country to be in, allocating our resources elsewhere will put an even larger dent in our debt."
God I hate this hypocrisy, everyone always says we shouldnt intervene overseas because of our debt and that to bring balance to the budget instead of cutting defense or subsidies or programs we dont need or close loop holes in tax codes we should be cutting our involvement in completely justified humanitarian missions.
Should we have not intervened in Haiti because of our debt because it would cost too much?
Should we not have fixed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because it would cost too much?
Should we not have given aid to Japan because that would cost us money?
Should we not even consider giving food supplies to impoverished countries to stave off a famine because it would cost us money?
Heres my point, yeah we have a debt problem, but dont throw a humanitarian aid mission that cost maybe a couple million dollars a year under the bus when we have a hundred trillion dollar defense budget, billions allocated for oil subsidies, two wars that should have ended a long time ago that cost us a combined 1.3 trillion to fund, and a massive healthcare system that could be reformed to easily put a huge dent in our national debt more than axing a humanitarian aid mission.
For the record, it doesnt cost the government that much to fund a mission to help bring down a warlord, in fact most of the funding comes right from charities.
Thank you for your rebuttal imabench.
Though granted that I lack the time and am currently leaving to vacation, I can no longer spend time on this debate.
Have a wonderful week, a little more research shows what IC's true intentions seem to be ~ "just about all of the charity called Invisible Children programs are ludicrously colonialist and vertical - the classic narrative of the White savior coming into the jungle to lift the natives out of their squalor. Many Ugandans who have been interviewed about the organization consider them to be jokes, more interested in their own publicity than in actually accomplishing something meaningful for the people of Uganda." 
Also from reports from Uganda paint a less flattering picture of Invisible Children as well. For one thing, the Lord’s Resistance Army isn’t even active in the country anymore. Kony probably isn’t there either. So while it’s all well and good to fund development projects there, tying them into this macho manhunt is sort of counter-productive.
"Misinterpretations of media content may lead some people to believe that the LRA is currently active in Uganda," said the government in Kampala.
Figured I would throw that in there. My opening was subject was somewhat flawed as I was against people praising this campaign and sending in funds to help bump an old mission back into existence.
Good luck in further debates, I lack time at this point and vacation awaits.
Thank you for you time.
The first source the Pro has cited is not even 8 hours old, cites no outside information, and is very biased and opinionated, the author quoted a random tweet about what he thinks people campaigning to get rid of Kony should do.
"Why the f--- do we care about whats happening in Uganda!!!! Go get some damn jobs you bums!!!!
Im not making that up its on the actual blog....
So as far as I know the author thinks this is another hippie movement and hes just using its popularity to sh*t all over it rather than provide any actual facts.....
"Also from reports from Uganda paint a less flattering picture of Invisible Children as well. For one thing, the Lord’s Resistance Army isn’t even active in the country anymore. Kony probably isn’t there either."
The video actually shows they are not in Uganda....... look on the Kony 2012 video posted above from 14:58 to 15:22
"And as the LRA began to move to other countries...... Jacob, and other Ugandans came to the US to speak on behalf on behalf of all people suffering, because of Kony. Even though Uganda was relatively safe....."
Picture 1, LRA territory in Red.
Picture 2, LRA terriroty in Red now operating out of Uganda and in other countries.
( Sorry for the fuzziness :P )
So any misconceptions that Uganda is where he is hiding in is not the fault of the Kony 2012 video, it is the fault of other media sources screwing up.... Not of this allegedly biased charity
Besides that the Con has completely dropped all other arguments about why this campaign shouldnt be supported, how there are other charities to donate to to fight this cause, how this charity sponsoring Kony 2012 is very legit, how the US is still only a little involved (100 troops), how the US is there only as advisers, and why the US should scrap very cheap humanitarian aid missions to help their budget when other options are available....
"The first source the Pro has cited is not even 8 hours old, cites no outside information, and is very biased and opinionated, the author quoted a random tweet about what he thinks people campaigning to get rid of Kony should do."
You're supposed to be Pro, please learn what position you are for then debate.
jsd forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Superior arguments and con was really a d*** in the last round. and FF's too.
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.