The Instigator
DebatingMaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vintinthethird
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 49472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DebatingMaster

Con

It is true what you say about countries benefiting more if we let them develop on there own, however have you stopped to think about the implications of this happening? What do you think countries would do if we stopped giving them aid? They would hate us which would give the U.K a bad name and a bad reputation and we cannot afford that. The U.K is one of the most visited countries in the world and we get most of our money from tourism, what do you think would happen if people started a war on us because we stopped giving them aid? They would be scared and stop coming to the U.K and our income will go down dramatically.
vintinthethird

Pro

Which countries do you think we are giving aid to? We are not giving aid to rich countries like China, the USA etc, we are aiding 3rd world countries who are stuck in poverty. How many people in countries like Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Libya can afford to visit the UK? How much do they contribute to the tourism of the UK? As to going to war, how much of a threat do you really think these countries are? There's a reason we are giving aid to them, not them to us.

In regard to countries hating us, the only people who might hate the change in policy we are trying to make happen would be the corrupt officials and dictators, certainly not the common public, whose living conditions would improve tremendously if we can convince other countries to make changes. Personally, I don't really care about being hated by people whose actions are detrimental to their entire country, and whose selfish, sometimes even brutal actions, harm their people. Surely using our aid to remove these people from positions of power can only be a good thing?
Debate Round No. 1
DebatingMaster

Con

These countries are a real threat and I believe it is ignorant to think otherwise. You pick out certain countries like Nigeria or Libya that might not be a threat but you seem to miss out countries like Afghanistan that can be a threat to us and can potentially cause war, or at least cause terror on our country which would have the same impact as war. I'm not saying people in those countries won't come to the U.K. I'm saying everyone else won't because they will be too scared in case a terror attack happened whilst they were there. After 9/11, airport income plummeted since people were too scared to go on a plane in case the same thing happened.

I also believe that it is ignorant to say that you don't care whether or not dictators hate us. May I remind you that dictators rule the country, whatever they say, goes. If they say attack the U.K. what do you think the citizens will do? The reason why 9/11 happened was because of Al-Qaeda's hatred for the West, do you really want to risk that happening?

I would also like to point out that they would not be the only countries hating us since the U.K. along with other developed countries made a law that meant that they had to give some money to less fortunate countries, how do you think others will react when they see how selfish we are being?
vintinthethird

Pro

Which countries do you think we are giving aid to? We are not giving aid to rich countries like China, the USA etc, we are aiding 3rd world countries who are stuck in poverty. How many people in countries like Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Libya can afford to visit the UK? How much do they contribute to the tourism of the UK? As to going to war, how much of a threat do you really think these countries are? There's a reason we are giving aid to them, not them to us.

In regard to countries hating us, the only people who might hate the change in policy we are trying to make happen would be the corrupt officials and dictators, certainly not the common public, whose living conditions would improve tremendously if we can convince other countries to make changes. Personally, I don't really care about being hated by people whose actions are detrimental to their entire country, and whose selfish, sometimes even brutal actions, harm their people. Surely using our aid to remove these people from positions of power can only be a good thing?
Debate Round No. 2
DebatingMaster

Con

Maybe you haven't realized but you stated the exact same argument that I did a response for and as I dislike repeating myself if you want my reply to that argument look above the one I am replying to now.

However, I do have a new statement since you obviously cannot reply to my others. You said that we help them financially so have you thought what would happen if we stopped? Thousands of people could die and the U.K. would be responsible. Also, I agree that removing bad dictators from power is a bad thing but at what cost does that come at? America removed the Taliban from power, forcefully which resulted in a war with thousands of lives lost, do you wish for that to happen to the U.K.?
vintinthethird

Pro

I must apologise for my repeating of the argument, my computer has been acting up a lot, and I didn't realise that it had worked the first time.

In response to Para 1+2 (Round 2):

You admitted in your first round that countries would benefit more from being allowed to develop independently. Your reason against this in this paragraph is that it might risk the ire of certain countries or terrorist organisations. So you're saying that we should not allow the majority of people to live fuller, better lives in these countries because we are scared of putting ourselves at risk? I'm not sure a policy that bends to the will of terrorist groups and brutal dictators is necessarily the best idea ever. In fact, the refusal to help others to the best of our ability because we are scared of a minority group retaliating seems to be the more selfish idea.

In response to Para 3 (round 2)

Once again, as you admitted, helping a country help itself is the best form of aid. So how exactly are we being selfish? You seem to be confused over what I am saying our goal is. The goal is not to save money, it is to help the other country the best we can. Also, do you think other countries just throw money at these poorer countries? No. This whole idea of long-term development involves countries working together to get the best outcome. If you want proof, research the 31st G8 summit (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I particularly liked the section whereby the group of countries agreed to a plan to relieve the debt of countries who met the required growth in terms of reducing corruption. Sounds familiar? This is the course of action I am advocating, and it seems to be backed up by the leaders of many important countries. Go figure.

In response to para 1 (round 3)

Your example of America's war in Afghanistan just shows how big a problem giving aid can be if done improperly. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, the USA sent a lot of aid, with no end plan. The results speak for themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
DebatingMaster

Con

In response to your first paragraph:
How do we know that stopping to give hem aid will benefit them? It will not, it will just make it worse. What about our reputation and promise to give those countries aid? Are we just going to forget about that and demonstrate our arrogance even more? You are forgetting that we send aid because we can afford it, we have a better quality of life than they do and as an M.E.D.C. we should be happy to give without any incentives. If we, as you put it, "bend" to the way of terrorists and dictators it would save more lives than forcibly removing them from power. I also disagree that we are bending to the will of cruel dictators, we just finding a peaceful way to take care of things that will not result in violence.

2nd paragraph response:
You are correct in saying that our goal is to help countries the best they can but how do we expect to do that without giving aid? You found a source from Wikipedia, however can we really trust the reliability of that source? In your last points I would really love for you to illustrate how not giving them aid would benefit them.

3rd paragraph response:
Again, what would you suggest we do exactly? Giving aid to countries is the most peaceful way.
vintinthethird

Pro

Looking at your answers, you still haven't really got what I am saying. The idea isn't to not give anyone aid, or for any selfish reason like that, it is to encourage long-term development in those countries, which ultimately helps those people more. There is no arrogance, or anything stupid like that, we are simply trying to help countries the best we can, in a way that even you, in your first sentence, admitted was the most beneficial method of aid. As to finding a peaceful way to take care of things, introducing values like equality and democracy is more peaceful than outright war, (which is what I was meaning when I mentioned Afghanistan), and much, much more effective than simply throwing money mindlessly at these corrupt people.

As to my source not being reliable, a quick search on the Internet corroborates my source. I chose wikipedia simply because it was the first one I picked. I think it is fairly easy to prove the accuracy of my claims.

To close, you wished me to say how not giving aid will benefit these other countries. I'm pretty sure I've been saying this throughout my debate, but never mind. Here goes...

There is no point sending money to countries when the majority of the money will go to the rich and corrupt, not helping the common public and the needy at all. The best way of looking after people in a country is to help them look after themselves. Therefore, we must improve the country's infrastructure and attitude towards the common people, as well as eradicating corruption, to ensure that any future aid is effective. The best way to do this is by setting goals for the country to meet, in terms of eradicating corruption and promoting equality. This method is in fact the one commonly used by the major countries already. Please note that this is still "giving aid", but so much in terms of money, but as in long-term development of the country, which will ultimately benefit that country more.

"Catch a man a fish, and he doesn't go hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he doesn't go hungry for life" -Gandhi
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.