The Instigator
h0lmboii
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should We Try to Support Our Troops Helping 3rd World Countries with Their Problems?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 21811
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

h0lmboii

Pro

I'm starting this debate due to something that has recently come up in Uganda, People are starting a campaign to keep troops that are helping the Ugandan Army capture Joseph Kony.

I think we should, because it would create/help build an image of America as a country that can help. I know we are in debt but this could also possible open a door to repay some of the debt that we owe to countries. So I say, Why not?
Zaradi

Con

I accept the debate.

Before my opponent begins, I'd like to clarify on what the resolution is asking us. If put in the form of a statement, it would probably look something like this:

We should support our troops assisting third world countries in need.

Which can be simplified to this:
We ought to assist people in need.

This simplified resolution doesn't change topic ground in the slightest. Pro still says we should help people, con says we shouldn't. No sides have changed ground at all. It's just a little easier to understand.

I'll let Pro start things off.
Debate Round No. 1
h0lmboii

Pro

Okay, I'll start by clarifying my side.

I'm not saying we should just give away all our money to people who say they need it. I'm going more along the lines of physically helping. Now I understand, not all people have the time to do this, but it's something we should try to go for, even if it's as simple as "helping an old woman across the road" kind of deed.

I'm trying to say that we, as a country, shouldn't be as self centered as we are. Our government won't act in any foreign matters, unless it affects our safety or, in lack of better words at the moment, the countries treasury. I do believe we should focus on those thing first if they come up, but there's many other countries out there suffering and dying while a majority of our country sits at home and complains about dying in a video game.

In July of last year our countries population was counted at roughly 311.5 million people. If every person donated at least $5 (assuming parents compensated for children) to a cause helping a foreign country, that's about $1.5 billion that could go to making the world better instead of making rich people richer.

Bill Gates, for example, one of the richest men on earth dropped down the list quite a bit, because he donates his money to causes he think could help make other people's lives easier. This is where my statement from before comes is. I'm not encouraging you giving your money away to the first person saying they'll do something to help people with it, but do research and find out what legitimate company actually does something that would make you proud to be a part of, and make it easier for them to help who they're trying to.

I don't see why we shouldn't help people who really need it.
Zaradi

Con

I guess it rests on me to disprove why we shouldn't try to help people. So without further adeiu, my reasoning is in the below document, to preserve character space:
https://docs.google.com...#

Now, let us adress my opponent's case:


How my case functions with my opponents is that it functions as a reason why his case is a reason to vote con. If my case is true, which I contend that it is, then by trying to assist people in need and protect their life fundamentally ruins the value of life, since suffering and the confrontation of death is what gives life value. By helping people as the pro proposes, he fundamentally ruins the value of life, which is a reason why we ought not assist people in any method, but rather let suffering flow naturally.

To clarify on a few arguments my opponent may stand up and say against my case, I am not advocating that we increase suffering. My case explains that we ought to allow suffering to flow as it naturally would, rather than interfere with it in any way. So any responses that he gives about how I advocate for extinction or another Holocaust don't respond to what my case is saying.

Also, in anticipation of my opponent saying that there is a necessary brightline to suffering that once we cross it, it's not necessary to suffer any longer, suffering can't have a brightline. To put a brightline on suffering would imply that after a certain amount of suffering, it is impossible for us to suffer any more than we have, which is just false. Even people who've suffered through crazy diseases and insane torture will always have more room to suffer. Constant natural suffering is what gives life it's value, and that is what the pro is trying to change, which thus ruins the value of life. In so far as the pro advocates to alter and reduce the flow of suffering in the world, he fundamentally ruins the value of life, the same life that he is trying to protect and improve, and thus we can vote con off of his own case.

Over to you, pro.
Debate Round No. 2
h0lmboii

Pro

h0lmboii forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

-sigh-
Extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
h0lmboii

Pro

h0lmboii forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

He closed his account, so this is no surprise.
Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
h0lmboii

Pro

h0lmboii forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Hey, is it okay if I put my arguments in a google document and post the link into my round? I'm running into problems with the character limit.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I will enjoy this debate mucho. :)
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I'd take it if I knew I had the time to put up a good round. Looks like fun though, I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Oh....my god....I so want to take this and run suffering = good.
I'll take it if it's still here when I wake up in the morning.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
h0lmboiiZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits and bad arguments
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
h0lmboiiZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
h0lmboiiZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF