The Instigator
DebateGirl
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Sgraf
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should the United States help other countries?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Sgraf
Started: 3/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,717 times Debate No: 15430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

DebateGirl

Con

This debate is going to be about whether or not the United States should help other countries and its going to be short and sweet. Last year, I remember watching American Idol and seeing where they raise millions of dollars to go to Africa. I was shocked. America is billions of dollars in debt! Why would we go to other countries and dish out millions of dollars? I get that Africa and other countries are poor.. blah blah blah. But don't you think that we should feed the hungry here before packing up to go save Africa? We have starving people here, we have abused children here, we have people who need help HERE! Why abandon our own neighbors to go help some other country?
Sgraf

Pro

While i can understand where you are coming from in your argument, I feel that it is our responsibility as a supposed world leader to support the less fortunate people of this world when possible. Yes, we should not be over looking the less fortunate people that are living within our borders but if we have the capability to help other countries than we absolutely should do so. The events that are unfolding in the world around almost always will have an impact on our society in some way or another, especially with continuing advancement in technology that is leading us toward a global economy where we are dependent on the services and resources of other societies. It is also our moral responsibility to at least try and help these people out in some way. It would be so selfish of us as americans to focus solely on the progression and advancement of our own society and completely neglect our ability to provide support to the people of societies that are in need.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateGirl

Con

I understand, but I still think that if we don't have the money to help ourselves then we should help others. That's like a man who just lost his job giving his last $20 to a hobo on the road; now he has no money at all to bring home to his wife and family. I am all for helping others, but FIRST let's make sure we are out of debt & have helped the needy here then we can run over to Africa and preform miracles.
Sgraf

Pro

I feel that our government needs to find a way to do both at the same time, eliminate our fiscal deficit and provide support to these countries. It is obviously important to get our country out of debt but what good is it if we become a prosperous country and the rest of the world, where we get many of our resources from, fall apart. How would we look as a country, abandoning the people who may be entirely dependent on our support and from which we receive many services and resources? Should we not offer support to the people of Japan either simply because we are in debt? Also remember that the United States is not completely immune to the problems that these countries have as well. If we fell into another great depression we would be the ones in need of support from other countries and we would look pretty dumb asking for it after isolating ourselves like that.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateGirl

Con

That is a very good point. What has happened and is happening to Japan is a disaster started by a natural disaster. I may be wrong about this, but I thought that Japan, China were the countries that we owed the most money to so could we not just help them in the ways we can and call it even? Maybe not even because we do owe them billions but could they not take that into consideration? Also, I agree with your statements about how if we fell into a depression we would look stupid if we asked for help from the countries we denied giving help to, but if we keep dishing out all this money for mosquito nets in Africa, shelters for Haiti, and more money to Japan we could fall into a depression.
Sgraf

Pro

I do believe that we indeed may be pushing the limits of how much money we should be spending, but cutting funding for support of other people is not the moral or politically correct way to cut our spending. Our military budget is absolutely huge compared to how much money we spend providing support to other countries, why not find ways to be more financially responsible with our military operations instead? And we cannot justify offering assistance only to countries that we are in debt too. When considering providing assistance that potentially saving peoples lives you need to look past the financial implications. If we didn't do that than do you feel that we should only help to the point where we save enough people to cancel out the value of our debt and leave the rest? And if so how can you even financially value a persons life?
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wolfhaines 3 years ago
wolfhaines
The USA is reliant on the rest of the world buying its goods or providing it with resources, to not help the world is economic suicide. You entered WWI to prevent Europe destroying itself so much that all your investments were lost, who won that war was none of your concern (and rightly so).

As for moaning about Japan- you quickly forget how much aid the EU gave to the USA after Katrina, in fact, some EU packages arrived in Louisiana before some of your federal help arrived. Help is not given on a 'who owes what' basis, it is given on a 'you are my friend, we are capable of handing you instant resources while you stabilise, so we will'. A lot of aid is given in resources, technology and knowledge, not just cash. THAT is why the USA is willing to help other nations, as it doesn't have to put itself into a difficult situation in doing so.
Posted by Zealous1 3 years ago
Zealous1
Basically, stress that it's either us or them. The USFG's responsibility is to care for and protect its citizens, not uphold everyone else. Plus, make an example about orphans. Russia has problems with its orphans. But don't forget the US also has orphans. The US gov. should provide for its own orphans, not just send Foreign Aid to Russia and ignore our own or get everyone in debt.

Good point about economic depression. Tie that in to Sgraf's argument about looking silly asking for help if we don't provide any ourselves. That situation is more likely to come IF we help people since we might go into depression.

Stress that our citizens are more important then other countries. It sounds selfish, but that's how it works.

A big point is also that citizen can send money THEMSELVES if they want to.

Lastly, it's unconstitutional to help other countries unless it promotes American's general welfare.
Posted by DebateGirl 3 years ago
DebateGirl
Government.
Posted by wjmelements 3 years ago
wjmelements
The United States; as in the government, or its citizens?
Posted by DebateGirl 3 years ago
DebateGirl
I agree, but we don't have the money. We are in debt.
Posted by Lakeshia 3 years ago
Lakeshia
I feel like if we have the money & technology then why not because we would want them to do the same!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 3 years ago
THEBOMB
DebateGirlSgrafTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, the United States has the largest economy in the world. There is a moral obligation to help people less fortunate such as Africa. There was talk of the debt owed to China, but instead of taking money from USAID maybe take it from the DOD--pro argued this (the military does not need 708.2 billion dollars). Countries which are in worse economic situation helped the United States when we needed help (Hurricane Katrina) we must reciprocate.Many of these countries are in a worse economy
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 3 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
DebateGirlSgrafTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont know why but CON's argument made no sense to me what so ever
Vote Placed by Zealous1 3 years ago
Zealous1
DebateGirlSgrafTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with DebateGirl, but Sgraf was a better arguer in this round. To both of you: never concede points. It just hurts your credibility. For example, DebateGirl conceded that it would look foolish to ask for help if we haven't been giving out any help ourselves. That's a hard point to fight, but don't completely agree with it because it makes you look bad and it hurts your debate. DebateGirl, expand your argument about a guy giving all his last money to a Hobo. See comments for more.