The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The G-7 Should Fund a 400 Billion$ Proposal to End World Hunger

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: 5/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 91094
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I will be debating on the pro side of this debate.


24 hours to post arguments

Max 3,000 characters per argument

1 week voting period

First round is acceptance


I accept this debate and will be arguing as the contender.
Debate Round No. 1


According to the United Nations about 21 000 people die from starvation or hunger related causes every day. Most of these deaths take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, The Middle east, and Oceania. The united nations has estimated that it would cost about 30 billion U.S dollars to feed every starving person on earth for 1 year.

As for my 400 billion dollar proposal about 1/3 of that money would go to feeding starving people around the world for the next 3-4 years or so and the rest would go towards building sustainable agriculture in famished areas in that 3-4 year period. The USA would pay for about 1/2 of it, japan for about a 1/5 of it, and the rest of it would be paid for by Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy combined.

Though 400$ may sound like quite a lot, in reality this is only about 1.5% in extra taxes per person living in these country's.

Finally it is our responsibility as humans to help those who are starving and for the reasons above this is not very expensive. Comparatively the Iraq war, a war that should not have started in the first place costed 1.7 trillion dollars, over 4 times more than the proposal that is was just talking about.


My side of the argument may be the darker side, but it is more realistic and practical. Pro's solution is one that is utopian in nature, and if history is any indicator, then it simply won't work. I'll go into some reasons why.

To begin, this idea would necessitate a tax increase in countries that already have homeless and starving people within their own borders. None of this extra tax money would help the needy citizens of their own country, despite the extra money coming out of people's pockets.

Sending food to starving communities may seem like an obvious solution, but it really adds to the problem. Feeding them will only cause a population increase, leading to more people that have to be taken care of by us (those 7 countries). A more reasonable and long-term idea would be to distribute birth control to the area in order to make sure pregnancies only occur in situations where a child is wanted and could be cared for. This would be much cheaper and would help the problem instead of adding to it.

In addition, this idea raises many questions. How are we going to teach isolated communities how to farm these crops? Who will plant the crops? Are we going to send multiple people to each little village? How do we choose crops that are good for the climate? What happens if crops fail? How long will we keep sending them seed to plant? All of this and more would need to be figured out by the government(s), who would most likely have to hire more people, adding to the expense.

Overall, in a realistic examination of the plan, the food sent would increase population, and the crops set up in these African villages would take a lot of time, resources, and effort, which is expensive for crops that could fail with inexperienced farmers.

I propose a different solution. I mentioned birth control earlier, and it would also be beneficial for volunteers to go over and provide knowledge and manpower required to build up infrastructure in the villages. The societies need to be elevated from within instead of being pulled up by the world powers, for if they are pulled up, then they will continue to rely on others. We need to look past this band-aid solution to a much deeper problem.
Debate Round No. 2


Responses to your arguments

For your fist point I will say that yes there are starving people in every country and In my proposal the food would go to every starving person. Not just the ones in certain country's.

There may be a population increases but this can be counteracted with what you just said, distributing birth control. This could be done along with giving food. Not just one or the other.

For you list of question's

1. The community would be given the farming education by hired experts that have much crop growing experience

2. Locals who are educate by the experts

3. Send a few people to about every 5th village or so and the people in that village can distribute crops to the nearest 5 villages.

4. By a team of experts to decide which plants are the best for different climates. Also a lot of plants like squash, gourds, hot pepper's, watermelon, green beans, rosemary, basil, pomegranate, Malabar spinach, and Nopales grow well in hot and very dry desert like climates.

5. There would be everything done possible to prevent crop failure using modern farming technology

6. Only for a few month's as plant's give off a lot more seed's then are needed to grow them

Figuring out the details of this would probably cost quite a bit of money but it would be extremely small in comparison to the total cost

I do realize that doing all of this is very expensive and requite much effort but in the long run it will do incredible good and will allow 3rd world countries to finally get a foothold on the global scale.

I agree with you a lot on your proposal as 3rd world countries do have many other problems but if we give them something to start with. After that they can go on by themselves with relying on other countries. We can do all of the things you talk about like giving country like these proper birth control and help rebuilding there infrastructure. All of these thing can happen while also solving world hunger and we don't need to just chose one of these things to solve.


Lorch317 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Are you there?


Lorch317 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
I am all for this, but only on the condition that those who believe in should be taxed to fund it. What do you say?
No votes have been placed for this debate.