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

The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2010 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 12179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Resolution: The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

child labor = children working regularly in unsafe environments usually with low pay.
third world countries = developing nations.
aid = medical aid, schooling, and basic comforts of life such as: beds, clothes, and hygienic items.
forced = required.

The use of forced child labor in third world countries basically forces children to work in adult environments. If a limb is cut off then the child is fired without pay or medical care.

Contention 1: Child labor demands a impossible quotas that children cannot reach and are thus deducted pay. This in turn demands children to work harder to exhaustion and strips them of morale. Many of these children live in slums with only the bare necessities while the factory owners live in a comfortable lifestyle. These owners are living at the cost of the children's sweat and effort. Many of these children are living in filthy environments with disease. By sending aid these children are living in an improved lifestyle and thus the poverty is slightly relieved and their morale is strengthened. In turn the world can learn from this and strengthen morale.

Contention 2: Education is the key to success. Sending teachers and basic educational items will educate the children and thus giving them a thirst for learning more. This gives hope to the poor and with hardships most children develop an ambitious personality to do better, and eventually impact society.
For example Marina Silva de Souza, a rubber tapper in the Amazon in Brazil, worked day after day tapping trees with her father. They were part of a group of rubber tappers. She was usually sick and her father sent her to learn how to measure and to arithmetic to make sure the contracters do not cheat them at age 15. After this brief expereince and her weak health condition, her father deciced she should move to the city and begin a formal education at age 16. There she worked hard and mastered elemntray, junior high, high school, and a college degree by age 20. Only 4 years! Education opened her eyes to the situation of Amazon forest where her father worked. A group of ranchers are planning to raze the forest for farm land. She allied herself with a another rubbertapper named Chico Mendes. From there the rubber tappers set up peaceful demontrations and set up roadblocks. The world was watching and one day Mendes was murdered. This did not stop Silva from acheiving her goal. Her personality and determination ralllied the tappers and went on with the demontrations while the ranchers harrassed the tappers. Soon the ranchers backed off. Marina Silva ran for poltics and won, she continued to voice the rights of the tappers and laborers in Brazil.
An example in the U.S is Cesar Chavez, living in poverty and working in the fields he only recieved 8th grade education. What he ended up doing was founding and leading the La Causa in a strike grape pickers and other farm owners using unfair labor.
So as you can see education the children will make an impact on and improve society.

Overall in the end the U.S should send aid to child laborers in third world countries because they will impact and improve society and teach the world something.



I thank Sniperjake1994 for starting this intriguing debate.

Let start of then shall we. My opponent has stated that the US ought to help children who are being abused in third world countries of forced child labor. I would agree certainly that child labor is anti humanitarian and must be stopped but my opponent holds a huge hypocrisy in advocating that the people who are wearing the clothes (made by children from china) and indulging themselves in there petty disgusting materialistic society, should help? Why should we use the abuser? The US government who forced 'trade' with many third world countries, such as economic fascism in South America. Saying that the US should be used to help or prevent child labor is like saying that Nazis should have been the one to help the Jews after he exterminated and exploited many of them during WW2.

I propose a new set of resolutions in order to stop Child Labor:

1) Burn down the industrial factories which enslave children and adults who are forced to work there for a wage.

2) Eliminate the governments and there economic systems who force there people to harm themselves and other people through work which is destroying the planet.

3) Get rid of overpopulation and get back down to sustainable levels.

4) Get rid of Civilization
Debate Round No. 1


I would also like to thank warllamas for accepting this debate.

As a brief roadmap this is where we are:
Pro's position: Sending aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.
Con's position: Alternatives to ending child labor.
I'll go on to defend my case and then attack Con.

Pro defense:
First of all third world countries make products and trading with the U.S. We don't know how they achieve the quota until there is a whistler report. Until then we continue to trade without knowing. When we do know we either take action such as these:, Or we can send in aid to relieve and strengthen the morale of the abused thus inspiring them to protest against the unfair labor and reform the system. This happened many times during the U.S Gilded Age.

Now onto Con's alternatives:
1) Burning down factories will not only work but:
a)cause a massive riot
b)lead to a massive lawsuit against the U.S.
c)cause social unstably.
d)pollute the environment with toxic gases.

And is not a very reliable way to end child labor.

2)How will we eliminate the governments and economy systems? By force? Wait...that will create deaths and chaos within these countries. Support inhumane rebel groups? No that defeats our humanitarian ideals. How about a reform led by the laborers? Yes, because it is humane, justified, nonviolent, and long lasting. Look at most of nonviolent protests they all have long lasting effects. Take for example the U.S civil rights movement, our society has much improved from that. Take a look at the protests in France, the government there gives what it believes is justified and right such as national healthcare.
A large majority of violent means to eliminate government produce short reigns. A major example is facist Germany that lasted less than a decade.
So by sending aid to children and teenagers laborers whom will be the strongest supporting reformers we strengthen their morale for government reforms favoring the laborers.

3)How will we get rid of overpopulation? And what will that solve? According to Pro's position by sending aid we can bring the population down to sustainable levels with aid such as hygienic items. This results in lowering death rates and a decreasing need for bear more children for a greater chance of continuing generations. And because they do not have as many mouths to feed the children do not have to work for the extra money and thus are not forced to work.

4)This will lead to anarchism and thus the loss of order and ultimately resulting in human extinction. Anarchism can never be achieved because there is some sort of order in the world. So what is the purpose of ending civilization?

Thank you and I await your response warllamas. This has been very interested so far.


2) Nonsense, violent protest get the most reaction from people. Violence is not symbolic it is something real and has widespread effects. Pacifism is pathological and misleading, for example Gandhi did not actually stop British rule in India the main reason was that the British Empire was not profiting enough from India to sustain rule there and had to pull back after WWII. This society extremely violent and exploitative the only way to fight back is to use violence as an effective tactic. Also the Civil Rights movements during the 60's in the US was mainly driven by political interests to reform, sure the movements and struggle of the African Americans and the Hippies lead to cultural changes but the ultimate bottom line drive was political interest. Remember the Hippies could not defeat the power of the state and never brought a new society, they where out gunned and had a less of a sphere of influence over the US population never sufficient numbers to resist and fully take down the system or create a new tyranny.

3) To answer the problem of overpopulation, we must look for the origin, which began with civilization. Civilization began with the change from hunter-gatherer and pre-neolithic revolution societies. Humans began to settle in cities where rulers formed and private property and economy's began. Agriculture created a dramatic increase in human population and in labor. Chieftains in this new city's and villages would latter become monarchs of huge empires and territories. The rulers which tended to be an oligarchy with a monarch portrayed as a puppet head for the elite ruling class forced law and division of labor. Armies where created to protect and fight to conquer more resources to expand the civilization. As all civilizations have a mechanism to constantly expand and create more labor and suffering for the participants.

Now that I have quickly outline the roots of inequality caused by civilization, I will now answer your claim that if population was reduced by peaceful means that child labor would end. The fundamental problem here is that the division of labor is makes inequality because people on the top of the hierarchy have more resources and power than those lower on the hierarchy. We "Americans" are overall better off than those lower in the hierarchy because we are a rich nation which gets the most resources which are produced, shipped and manufactured from third world countries all around the world. Therefore we have more resources and power over those lower and thus we exploit and cause suffering to those below us regardless of whether we agree with this or not.

Children in third world countries have to work nearly or as much as there parents for starvation wages normally less than a dollar a day and working brutal, insane, in human hours. Sometimes having to work night shifts, in other words 24 hours! They suffer more than us because they are lower on the hierarchy, population is irrelevant because this hierarchy existed since the start of civilization.

4) Anarchism is probably one of the most anti-authoritarian philosophies in the whole of human history. In struggles for the right of all people regardless of race, sex, class or any other arbitrary classifications. In essence Anarchism is the natural struggle of the human race under systems and institutions of domination which wither and prevent equality and enjoyment of life.

In conclusion my opponent wants to use the very system of exploitation which he does hardly not understand how it functions and its origins and why people suffer from it. The resolution is negated! I wait to see the final response...
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to remind Con that the purpose of debate is to refute arguments made, not attacking one's position as you has been doing for the past 2 rounds. Thank you.

Attack Con's refutals and go over my case then voting issues.

Rebuttals against Con:
1) No response: dropped it/silent is consent and had the opportunity to refute but did not and thus cannot bring it up in round 3 because I cannot refute it. Con's idea of burning factories is very childish.

2) Violent protesters produces the most negative reaction from the public. Violence is symbolical as a desperate last ditch effort for change. Its positive effects are short-lived. Pacifism actually achieves more than violence. Con's theory of India's independence is only partially why. India practiced civil disobedience, non-violently of course, such as the Salt March. This and other boycotts where some reasons the British could not tax imported goods thus withdrew from India. Gandhi did directly stop British rule by uniting most Indians in the boycott. 1960s goal was achieved: U.S withdrew from Vietnam War and have equal rights for everyone. It changes society politically and socially. So a violent approach to end child laborers in the government is unreasonable.
Another example Caesar Chavez led the grape pickers for better pay and housing through non-violent means such as picketing. The growers respond by harassing and attacking strikers, soon public opinion turned to favor grape pickers and the pickers won.

3) My worthy opponent has failed to describe or even state the realistic impacts after dismantling civilization. Basically according to Con: because civilization creates hierarchy there is a line between rich and poor, by getting rid of civilization the two classes meet. Pro's argument: Children will still have to work (sometimes even harder to compete for food) sooner or later no one would know what the do and the meaning of life in pointless until we form some sort of groups and thus civilization rises again and the process repeats. Therefore getting rid of civilization is utterly inhumane and pointless to end child labor.

4) Definition: Anarchism = belief in abolishing government voluntarily.
(refer to #3). If it is the natural human struggle then why did our ancestors form hierarchy in the first place? Without a government everyone needs to work to live, like communism (except it has a government). Does it work in reality? Like all other ideas, noooooo.
Prove how anarchism promotes enjoyment of life. You are always on the run, killing each other, never settling down, dying early, etc.
With a government there is order and with order is corporation and with that people get things done and with that life is easier and equal (with technology) if everyone does the same amount of work.

Pro's impact:
Why send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries?
We have failed on several occasions to change "third world" society. So by sending non-military aid to them, as they are the new generation knowing the hardships of life as such a young age, they will have the chance to do what they see fit to end child labor and improve the quality of life and remove their country from the "3rd world" list. This is the goal.

Pro's case:
1) Dropped this argument in 2 rounds, silence is consent, and cannot bring it back up because there isn't another round for Pro to refute it.
Recap: By sending aid to improve the life of the child laborers they improve in morale for reforms led by themselves. This creates the attention of child influence. This in turn will affect the government and society in a positive way where now everyone in society has the chance to make a difference with their lives.

2) Again Con dropped this argument in 2 rounds, silence is consent, and cannot bring it back up because there isn't another round for Pro to refute it.
Recap: By sending education aid children are able to learn and develop an ambition for knowledge and compete for better higher-paying jobs. This in turn will impact society with a new generation of educated young workers.
Who knows maybe some of them will find a cure for cancer.

Voting Issues:
1) Con dropped/agreed to my contentions by not refuting them. Silence is consent.
2) Pro's non-violent approach to end child labor in third world countries is more effective than Con's short-lived alternatives.
3) Pro's impacts are more reasonable than Con's (if he has one).
4) Con kind of missed some key example of pacifism, such as protests in France to get national healthcare(Sicko documentary movie).

With all that said vote for Pro. And thank you warllamas for this interesting debate! And thank you for any voters reading this!


I would like to thank Pro for this debate but therefore I must negate.

You say burning the factories are childish. It is not for the factory is tyrannical for the workers enslaved under it merely to get a wage to survive. The factor is a symbol of human suffering and petty labor which fuels the industrial machine and this materialistic society.

2) "There is an idea, no, a wish cherished by many, that love implies pacifism. If we love we cannot ever consider violence, even to protect those we love. I'm not sure that mother grizzly bears would agree"_ Derrick Jensen

This quote by Jensen I believe show the flaw and contradiction of pacifism. Most blatantly it's rejection of violence under every circumstance. Violence needs to be used once language breaks down it is when real people you love and even your way of life existence is threatened by a oppressor. Public opinion which is in contrast to violence, tends to be counterrevolutionary and normally supportive of the oppressor. Now unlike what my opponent may believe I am not saying that there is never a need or place for passive action. Thou passive action has it's limits when faced with mass social suffering in a society. It then becomes insufficient and violence then is the final weapon of defense. Now it is the job of the pacifist to believe that the very act of violence is wrong. When a murder brutally rapes and kills a victim and threatens the safety of the community. The community hence must fight back!

The Gandhi myth is very believable especially for people like us who live in the 1st world and don't want to see the how violent are civilized society gets to ourselves, other people, non humans, and the world.

"Another reason for the assassination was the Gandhi's overly conciliatory attitude toward the Muslims, in spite of the terrible massacres that preceded and followed the partition of India. Gandhi advised gaining their cooperation by love and disinterestedness, whereas everywhere the Muslims of India and Pakistan chanted, "we got Pakistan for a song, Delhi will cost us a battle." (Nationalism and the Gandhi Myth, Arjuna & Irmin)

I believe this shows clearly why violence in response to violence is needed. Gandhi cooperation could be achieved when the enemy is violent. Tensions an struggles between India and Pakistan continue today and one of the reasons why India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are separated is because of peaceful political action which divided them. Violence in all of South Asia against British rule would have unified the people so that they would not need to divide after the British left!

3) Refutation of Pro's Argument
Pro assumes that civilization is a form of mutual cooperation, quiet to the contrary! If you were to go ask miners in south america, asia, africa, they would tell you that they are forced to be there in the mines everyday away from any sunlight and there families merely to gain capital in order to survive. Hunter Gatherer societies such as the Kalahari Bushmen have a much more cooperative way of getting resources. They have gift economies in which they share resources and the more you give the more you get and that benefits the whole. Under civilization there is no cooperation only hoarding of resources. Every man for himself! Everyone tearing away the earth for there own gain in a unsustainable fashion.

The Native Americans lived at least a thousand year before the power of western civilization exterminated nearly 90% of them. Pre-civilized people have less organized violence than in civilized societies. It may be true that Native Americans had agriculture and domestication to a small extent but they where not fully dependent on it! They did not destroy enough environments like the civilizations in the fertile crescent destroyed most of the trees in the middle east.

I think that civilized life makes life dull repetitive, and meaningless! But of course to Pro's mine life is meaningless to humans till we start fighting each other to death and having many wars and technological advancement to get better at war and resource consumption. Time is an illusion and alienate people who are controlled by the bell or to the second. My opponent holds a huge hypocrisy when advocating civilization (organized violence) to fix society and lead to some sort of space fearing galactic scientific utopia!

4) Engels and Marx described pre-civilized societies as "primitive communism". Which I believe is true socialism, unlike state socialism like the USSR, China, Cuba because socialism can not be sustain or achieved through mass society and industrialization.

"Prove how anarchism promotes enjoyment of life. You are always on the run, killing each other, never settling down, dying early, etc."

My opponent clearly does not understand what anarchism is. He has read or heard nothing of it only the propaganda of this culture which embraces suffering. He want to use the state to bring social change. State Capitalism does it work in reality? Like all other ideas, noooooo!

Now to directly answer Sniperjake1994's question of should US aid be sent to help child laborers in third world countries? Well you see one problem is that the US has already done that several times in many cases as well as many organizations, and has it worked. No... child labor is still here and civilization is still destroying the earth....
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by warllamas 8 years ago
@RoyLatham Capitalism either free market or government regulated still requires hierarchy. Governments and Private industry are not much different in how they treat people because they are both fundamental part of civilization. No amount of aid can stop the hierarchy it can only help a small group of people but as long as the hierarchy is in place there will be inequality.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Con didn't really have a case, so decided to blow smoke instead. Pro patiently rebutted.

A Con case could be built arguing that sending aid to child laborers provides no guarantee that the children would receive the aid. Much slave labor is in China, where the government is not likely to allow outside aid. Also. Pro didn't make the case that much labor is forced by governments. Poverty means that everyne has to work long hours. The long term cure to poverty is capitalism, and that is achieved by investing in the countries rather than giving aid.

Good topic. I'm sure there are related topics that would also make good debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30