The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

The US Government should substantially increase investment within the African Continent.

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 15 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,638 times Debate No: 52351
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (271)
Votes (15)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

I will argue the resolution that the United States government should increase investment within Africa. The United States government will constitute all things distributed or provided by the nations ruling body.

Africa will be defined as the 54 countries that constitute the African continent.

- BOP is shared.

- First round is acceptance

- No rebuttals will be made until the final round. You will make your arguments in R2

- Acceptance is in comments

- A one paragraph closing will go into R4. The debate can be extended to R4 on the condition the my opponent and I agree to in the comment section of this debate.

- By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all rules and defenitions in the debate.

Further Definitions

Investment: an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.

Arena: a place or scene of activity, debate, or conflict.

Market: an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted.

Intervention: the action or process of intervening.

Debate Voting Rules

- A 3 point vote will be factored in for whomever had the best arguments.

- The source point should count for 1 point. It will take the S&G spot. Because of this, S&G will not be counted. Intentionally bad S&G will be stricken from conduct.

- RFD's will be required to mention every argument. This is to prevent selective voting.

- You may not vote on the source point and not the argument one. This is selective voting, and will not be accepted for this debate.

- I've been also tipped to not allow Mikal to vote on this debate. I agree, and not because I don't think he'll not vote fairly, but because this debate stemmed from an argument with him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good luck to my opponent and may the best debater win :)
Zaradi

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Investment 1: Further investment of Humanitarian Aid

Contention 1: Sub Saharan Africa has one of the largest statistics of extreme poverty in the world.[1]

Contention 2: European countries like Britain, France, and the Netherlands have a huge amount of financial investments in Africa.[2] [3] [4]

Contention 3: Unrest disrupts trades, and the flow of raw materials from Europe to the US is hindered by it.

Contention 4: People who are happy and fed are less likely to cause unrest.

Resolution 1

The US should invest more time and effort into humanitarian aid, to secure the flow of globalization, and protect the African nations from hindering capitalism. This can be achieved by refocusing current US agencies like the Peace Corps and Africom to help troubled nations, in order to secure economic security and African development.

Investment 2: Further Investment of Military Presense

Contention 1: The US has one base in all of sub-saharan Africa. [5]

Contention 2: US essential shipping regions in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Aden are attacked by Somali Pirates.

Contention 3: Africom has no place to set up shop in Africa.

Contention 4: US, British, and Arab ships are often attacked by terrorists or pirates passing through these African regions and charged ransom. [6]

Contention 5: The US has no naval docks able to quickly deploy to situations in Africa.

Resolution 2

The US should invest more into securing bases and ending piracy within Africa. Costly mobilizations and a lack of naval presense leaves us vunerable to two of the largest continental coastlines. The USFG should focus on raising money for Africom and bases by selling off posts in Europe and Thailand, reduce funding for less essential military programs like the NSA, and improving relations with local leaders.

Investment 3: Further Investment in Africa's Growing Markets.

Contention 1: African countries have the fastest growing GDP's in the world after China. [7]

Contention 2: Several countries such as France, China, Arabia, Britain, and Holland have made large investments within Africa's markets.

Contention 3: Most of America's investments are in South America, even though certain African markets have far outgrown many industries. [8]

Contention 4: America only has corporate influence in Liberia, and a few small land sectors within other countries. [9]

Contention 5: America is the most behind among the GP's in the scramble for African market investment.

Resolution 3

Investing more into trade, markets, and encouraging corporate interaction among African business men. Increasing the budget of the SEC and ITA, and then filing the increased budget money into African trade and development, will surely produce extreme amounts of revenues. Corporations like Firestone have already been immensely successful in making use of Africa's cheap labor and natural resources.

[1] http://s.wsj.net...

[2] http://www.britishafrican.org...

[3] http://www.spiegel.de...

[4] http://www.irinnews.org...

[5] http://www.bbc.com...

[6] http://www.ibtimes.com...

[7] http://www.economist.com...

[8] http://www.latia.org...

[9] http://www.firestonenaturalrubber.com...


Zaradi

Con

His imagination of a better world is a continuation of the ascetic ideal. This association of all that is good as not of this world expresses a hatred for the only one we’ve got. Fantasizing about a world without suffering produces creative impotence---only our relationship to life can escape this paradox of resentment. Turanli:

(“Nietzsche and the Later Wittgenstein” Journal of Nietzsche Studies 26 p. 55-63)

to imagine another, more valuable world is an expression of hatred for a world that makes one sufferEscaping from this world because there is grief in it results in asceticism. … Paying respect to the ascetic ideal is longing for the world that is pure ... Craving for frictionless surfaces, for a perfect world, is the result of the ressentiment of metaphysicans who suffer in this world. Thephilosophercontinues to repeat, "'My kingdom is not of this world'" … This is a longing for another world in which one does not suffer. It is to escape from this world; to create another false world. Thisquest for another world, , is the result of unproductive thinking. … "the impotence of the will to create"Metaphysicianstry to discover the true, transcendental world that is already there rather than creating a world for themselves. The way out of the circle created by the ressentimentis the will to life rather than the will to truth. The will to truth can be overcome only through a Dionysian relationship to existence. This is the way to a new philosophy, which aims "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle"

Their benevolence towards the oppressed is a thinly veiled attempt to exercise power over the subjugated. Nietzsche:

(The Gay Science. P.38-39)

Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising one's power upon othersWeshow benevolence to those who are already dependent on us ; we want to increase their power because in that way we increase ours, or we want to show them how advantageous it is to be in our power—that way they will become more satisfied with their condition Whether benefiting or hurting others does not affect the ultimate value of our actions; even if we offer our lives, … this is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power …”

Suffering is inevitable-the drive to abolish it holds life in contempt. The tension of the should in misfortune is what cultivates human greatness. Nietzsche 2:

(Beyond Good and Evil P.153-154)

modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to PLEASURE and PAINarenaivetes, that is not sympathy as you understand it: OUR sympathy is a further-sighted sympathy You want, TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; andWE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline ofGREAT suffering--know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery inenduring,misfortune, and whatever spirit, … has been bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through great suffering? In man CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not onlyclay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also thethe sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, … And that YOUR sympathy for the "creature in man" applies to that which has to be fashionedto that which must necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer? there are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and sympathy; and all systems of philosophy which deal only with these are naivetes.”

The ultimate result of this negative orientation toward life is the inability to live life to its fullest. Instead, the affirmative holds life in contempt for its pains, never understanding that life is suffering, starvation, and dying. The desire to seek redemption from life through the creation of a future moral order annihilates life in the present. This is the worst possible danger: our existence becomes a dreary perpetuation of biological life, devoid of meaning, waiting only for passive death. Nietzsche 3:

(The Birth of Tragedy. Translated Golffing, 1956. p. 9-11)

the world was made to appear,as an ever new vision projected by that grand sufferer for whom illusion is the only possible mode of redemption.Yet in its essential traits it already prefigured that spirit of deep distrust and defiance which was to resist to the bitter end any moral interpretation of existence whatsoever. It is here that one could finda pessimism situated “beyond good and evil”;a philosophy which dared place ethics among the “deceptions.” Moralitybecame a mere fabrication at best, an artistic fiction; at worst, an outrageous imposture.the furious, vindictive hatred of life implicit in that system of values, … From the very first, Christianity spelled life loathing itself, and that loathing was simply disguised, with notions of an “other” and “better” life. A hatred of the “worlda curse on the affective urges, a fear of beauty and sensuality, a yearning for extinction, cessation of all effort until the great “Sabbath of Sabbaths”—this whole cluster of distortions, … always struck me as the most dangerous, form the will to destruction can take;And since according toabsolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followedthat one must view it as an object not only unworthy of our desire but absolutely worthless in itself. As for moralitycould it be anything but a will to deny life, a secret instinct of destruction, … the beginning of the end?—and, for that very reason, the Supreme Danger?”

The affirmative’s embracing of humanity designates an unhuman enemy—endless wars and violence have been carried out in the name of their universal appeal to the human. Rasch:

(“Human rights as geopolitics” Cultural Critique 54, Spring. p 135-6)

the humanitarian attempt to construct a world of universal friendship producesby internal necessity, ever new enemies. humanity. By virtue of its universality has no clear distinction betweeninside and outside. Does humanity embrace all humans? If not, against whom or what does it wage its wars?Christianity distinguishes between believers and nonbelievers. Since nonbelievers can become believers, they must be of the same category of being. To be human … then, is the horizon within which the distinction between believers and nonbelievers is made. humanity is not part of the distinction, but makes the distinction possible. However, once the term used to describe the distinction also becomes that distinction's positive pole, it needs its negative opposite.setting off the inhuman from the human is followed by an even deeper split, the one between the superhuman and the subhuman. In the same way that the human creates the inhuman, so in the history of humanity the superhuman brings about the subhuman ... political opposition to liberalism is itself deemed illegitimate. liberal pluralism, reduces the political to the social and nullifies all truly political opposition by simply excommunicating its opponents only an unregenerate barbarian could fail to recognize the irrefutable benefits of the liberal order.

The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided. Wrisley:

(George, “What Should Our Attitude Towards Suffering Be,” Nietzsche and Suffeirng- A Choice of Attitudes and Ideals, pg 4-5, http://www.georgewrisley.com...)

“the meaning of our suffering … has been the problem … The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that … views suffering as undesirable, but which … uses … deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns … the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided … the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, … Nietzsche’s positive alternative—one that embraces the necessary role suffering … we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided.”

To summarize the NC, his arguments are arguing for ways to improve conditions in Africa, thereby reducing suffering. I'm arguing, via my case, why we shouldn't be looking to reduce suffering. This means my case functions apriori to his case. This means that if I'm winning my case, then I win the debate because I control the internal link and internal warrant to his impacts.

But let's go to his arguments. Since I'm running out of space I'll go more in detail in the next round but I want to at least touch on it now.

First, there's no actual solvency to any of his arguments. All he posts are short, syllogicstic, blippy arguments with no actual reason why those argument solve the problems he's trying to fix. So even if you buy his arguments, he doesn't have any link to his impacts without proving how his arguments solve the problems he's trying to fix.

Second, aid and investments actually are detrimental to Africa. I'll go more into specifics next round, but needless to say the article concludes "If nothing else, aid to Africa seems to have lowered rather than increased economic growth."(1)

Third, aid decreases natives' will to work on their own, breeding dependence. To quote directly from the article, "Aid has driven Africans to lose confidence in their abilities and opportunities. It has promoted a culture of dependence - a culture of relying on other people’s help."(2)

(1) - http://tinyurl.com...;
(2) - http://tinyurl.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Note to my opponent, I have only made one argument for why we should end suffering, and it did not involve raising any budgets.

I will also remind him that I was expecting a more thorough argument, not relied on 90% by quotations, but let me begin none the less. I have readthrough all his quotations, and they hardly support his case, or relate to aidning Africa. Many even disprove his case, including this one.....

"The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided."

Which is his own quotation, right out saying that we should not avoid others suffering. My opponent has provided philosophical reasoning, and not practical reasoning, when I intended for this to be a practical debate.

So, I'll just hope you have all seen that these philosophical tidbits are extremely unrelated to the actual topic, so then we get back to the facts.

Rebutals

First, there's no actual solvency to any of his arguments. All he posts are short, syllogicstic, blippy arguments with no actual reason why those argument solve the problems he's trying to fix. So even if you buy his arguments, he doesn't have any link to his impacts without proving how his arguments solve the problems he's trying to fix.

I believe that attacking the way I argued is unfair. I sourced nearly every claim with statistics and facts. That is what a contention is. A truth, but I'll put up a couple of debate violations you commited.....

Name Calling: I was called a troll, idiot, and that I'll be crushed over the comments and forums.

Changing the Subject: As I pointed out already, you drastically changed the debate topic by posting a large degree of philosophy quotations that were relevant to metaphysics and not practical aid to Africa.

False Premise: You have cited several sources which provide little in the way for facts, and from what I see throughout your argument, have not disputed a single contention I made.

Cult of Personality: Throughout the forums and comments, you have been trying increasinly hard to rouse up anger and attacks at me from your friends, while I simply remained calm. It was very uncalled for. You are certainly more popular among senior members, and I wouldn't be suprised if some vote for you no matter what, but this makes it no less of a cheap tactic.

Playing on fantasies and fears:
Throughout your arguments and sources, the form of logic was in the style of baseless assumptions that aid, investments, and military presense will always backfire. Little evidence went in the way of supporting this.

Relying on credentials: In the comments and forums, my opponent has claimed that there will be absolutely no way I can beat him. I simply just asked for a chance to try, and while agreeing, he still kept replying to members saying that he is a much better debater.

Straw Man: All the sources you provided were on the belief that the government budget should be increased. I never made such an argument, but you attacked it none the less. Good example, how he dropped all my investment arguments except humanitarian aid.

Sunk Cost: Some of your sources provided very minimal statistics, as I keep pointing out, and relied on past evidence. Arguments should be made on what we have now and if it can realistically work for the future. As his BBC stated, that past aid programs have failed in the past, so maybe we should rethink them in the future (His source wasn't even saying we should stop aid). This is a sunk cost ploy.

Political Correctness: This is perhaps the biggest offense by my opponent. Its when someone introduces a rebuttal, but also drops it at the same time. I am well aware as I've to had several offenses of this.

"Second, aid and investments actually are detrimental to Africa. I'll go more into specifics next round, but needless to say the article concludes..."

Mockery: No need to get into this one. Every person who has followed this debate can confirm the amount of mocking he has directed at me. I had challenged several other members, and he was the only one to engage like this.

Domino Argument: I had already went into depth on this above, but I'll clarify it anyways. The site he has sourced, was tottally relying on a hypothetical domino thory, where one thing will lead to another and Africa will suddenly collapse. This is in violation of several more offenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't attack conduct in most other debates, but I feel due to the voting system, that this stuff may come to light. My opponent has dropped all my arguments and contentions, and has been playing a straw man game. I'm sure I may of violated at least one rule throughout this long process, but not nearly to this extent. You can read more on the tactics used here....

http://www.johntreed.com...

Now lets focus on putting some more investments up on the board.

Investment 4: Further Investment in Diplomatic Relations

Contention 1: The US has had several interactions in Africa since the 1990's, almost all of which backfiring.

Contention 2: Failed operations in Trans Sahara, Somalia, and the Gulf of Aden have been met with little cooperation from national leaders.

Contention 3: US and NATO anti-piracy operations have resulted in many failures, partially due to a lack of cooperations with national governments.

Contention 4: Good and strategic relations with Africa wields more benefits then harms.

Resolution 4

Contrary to a popularly held opinion, diplomacy does not always involve one side giving something uo or meeting middle ground. Diplomacy in Africa is nearing non-existence. We should attempt to reopen talks with prominent African leaders, restore our embassies, and begin making actual relations with these nations. Europe is far ahead in diplomatic ties, and mutual cooperation has led to great things. Perhaps the US should consider joining in on this, before we are left alone once again in Africa.

Thanks for debate Zaradi, and good luck next round ;D
Zaradi

Con

I don't even know what to say. Jifpop just doesn't even respond to anything I say other than saying I'm using philosophy other than stats and then attacks my conduct. I guess just extend out my case as unresponded to. He doesn't respond to any of my responses to his case either, so you can extend those out as reasons why putting more investments into Africa don't work and are harmful to Africa. At this point I could just pass over the round in hopes we could actually have a debate instead of him just whining that I'm not debating how he wants me to debate, but in hopes of him actually making responsive arguments I'll go line-by-line through his last round to respond to his complaints.

"Many even disprove his case, including this one....."

Not so. Say that the quote you pulled from my case is contradictory just shows you don't understand what my case is arguing, so I'll explain it again: your arguments are advocating for a reduction in the world's suffering. This makes the assumption that suffering is something to be avoided and reduced/eliminated, an assumption that my case attacks. Therefore, my case proposes that instead of striving to reduce suffering, that we should just accept suffering and embrace it as a part of life and just live life instead of worrying about all the suffering in the world and spending time from our lives working to try and fix all the world's problems. In no way does that quote contradict the advocacy of my case.

"My opponent has provided philosophical reasoning, and not practical reasoning, when I intended for this to be a practical debate."

Then my opponent should not have challenged me to a debate. Not only am I known for running philosophical arguments, but I'm also known for running THIS philosophical argument in more than one different debate. I've even used it in a live debate, and on other online debates on this website. There's absolutely no reason he shouldn't be prepared to argue against this argument. The fact that he isn't trying to argue against it, and is instead attacking me on a conduct level rather than a substance level, should show voters exactly how this debate is panning out, and who is winning the debate.

"I'll just hope you have all seen that these philosophical tidbits are extremely unrelated to the actual topic,"

Refer back to the first quote where I explain how my case relates to your case and the topic in general. It's far from unrelated.

"I believe that attacking the way I argued is unfair."

I believe that attacking someone's conduct any expecting to actually win the debate is unfair, but you're doing that. Guess we've both messed up.

"I sourced nearly every claim with statistics and facts. That is what a contention is. A truth,"

Two responses to this one:

First, this is entirely unrelated to my refutation. You can have twenty million statistics showing you that Africa is in a pretty crappy place right now, but still not have a reason why your arguments solve for the crappy-ness. You have yet to make any kind of argument for why, if we believe that your arguments are true, that you will solve for the problems in Africa. Until you do, my refutation stands.

Second, Your entire belief of what a contention is is wrong, as well. A contention is an argument, a point that you want to suggest is true. This argument is made up of three components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Between those three are things called 'links' that connect the three to each other and make a smooth, logical argument. The link between your warrant and your impact is what I'm questioning in this refutation.

"I'll put up a couple of debate violations you commited....."

Group all of them together. Even if you buy these arguments, at best for Jifpop, this means you give him the conduct point and continue evalutating my arguments. All of these are arguments for why I have debated this debate unfairly, which is attacking my conduct. None of these engage my arguments on a substantive level, i.e. in terms of the actual debate in proving or disproving arguments. I'll respond to a few that I feel need to be responded to, but don't let him extend out one of these as a reason he should win this debate because none of them function as reasons he should win, rather reasons he should be awarded the conduct point.

"False Premise:"

Entirely false. The last two sources I gave in my previous round were filled with facts that directly refuted your contentions by saying that aid and investments supplied to Africa have not ever worked, will not work, and actually make the situation worse and are the cause of a lot of the problems.

"Cult of Personality:"

Entirely baseless assertion. If anything this sole argument should make conduct tied or in favor of me because not only does it attack me on a personal level, but it attacks others who aren't even participating in this debate on a personal level, which is far worse than anything I could've possibly done.

"Playing on fantasies and fears:"

One, he provides no actual examples of me doing this, only saying that I do it. Entirely baseless assertion.

Two, this ignores a) the actual lines of logic that my arguments prove that he isn't even attempting to refute (it's like saying one plus one doesn't equal two without explaining why it doesn't equal two), and b) ignores the actual statistics my arguments toward the end of my previous round provide.

"Straw Man:"

Blatantly false. My case has a link to all of your investment arguments, insofar as your arguments are attempting to reduce suffering via solving the problems in Africa. It's not exclusive to humanitarian aid. To even point out specific points in his in each argument...

Investment Two: Contentions Two and Four
Investment Three: Conclusion, specifically "will surely produce extreme amounts of revenues"
Investment Four: Contentions Two, Three, and Four

"Sunk Cost:"

The problem here is you aren't arguing anything different than what's been tried in the past. You're advocating we do the exact same thing we've done in the past. So even if my source does say we should rethink things, the thing is you're not.

Moreover, you're not understanding the way I'm layering the debate. The way this round works is really simple: my case functions apriori to your case as it's questioning the assumptions that your case makes (i.e. we should try to reduce suffering). If I'm winning on my case, which you haven't even attempted to respond to, then I win the debate because it doesn't even matter what kinds of arguments we make in terms of investing in Africa or not; if we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, and your case is trying to reduce suffering, then you lose the debate. But in the event I'm not winning on my case, then the responses against your case actually matter.

"Political Correctness:"

It's oh-so-hard to say everything I want to say in 10k characters when I use all but 35 of them. You only use a little over 3k characters for your round. Hence why I said I would expand on them more in this round, which I will.

As that covers everything he said in his last round, I'm going to use this time to expand on the arguments I began to bring up previously.

To expand on the second rebuttal I made in the previous round, there's numerous reasons why investing more in Africa hasn't worked. To begin with, we've already invested over one trillion dollars over the past sixty or so years, and there's been little to no actual benefit from the investment.(1)

Take a look at this handy dandy graph as well



From this we can see that as we invested more money into Africa, the actual Growth GDP per capita actually went DOWN. And when we stopped investing more money into Africa and investments went down, the Growth GDP per capita actually started to RISE again. So what does this prove? Investing in Africa doesn't work. If anything it hurts more than helps.(1)

To expand more on my third argument, my source tells the story of what actually investing in Africa does: turns the native Africans into mere procreators because everything else that they could possibly do is being provided for free or at a massively reduced price from foreign competitors.(2) This just leads to entire dependence. When what they can get naturally is being bested by what's being provided from foreign sources, there's nothing else to do other than keep trying and failing to make your product successful or to just sit on your butt and wait for the next shipment of "aid" to come in. That's the very definition of dependence.

With that the round breaks down really simply:

First you're evaluating my case, which Jifpop hasn't put a single response to other than it's philosophy and that's not what he wanted to debate. Since next round is the final round and he can't respond to it then, you negate the resolution on the basis that we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, and since his case is trying to reduce suffering you instantly reject his case, which means you're voting con.

But even if you don't buy my case, he's not doing enough work on his own case to show why his plans solve for all the problems that he's saying are going on in Africa right now. Since he hasn't provided that link for you, and he can't in the next round since no new rebuttals and arguments can be made in the final round as per his own rules, even if you buy his arguments he hasn't shown how they actually solve for the problems in Africa. Moreover, he hasn't even attempted to respond to my refutations to his case, which show in nice, easy to understand numbers that not only has his plan not worked in the past, but it's also made things worse, and is the cause for a lot of the problems in Africa. The layering there is really simple. To make it even more simple, I'll go ahead and explain where each and every point should be going.

S/G - Tied.
Conduct - In my favor. He's calling into question the integrity of the site as a whole, which is far more offensive than anything I've done.
Arguments - Explained in my favor.
Sources - Tied.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

I'm not going to spend time arguing the conduct statements, as I think my point was rather well made. Anyways, this debate is about Africa, and not him. I will also throw out the refutation rule as a courtesy, as I also refuted after my opponent in R1. I have also decided to use my reserve power to extend the debate. So, lets begin.....

To begin with, we've already invested over one trillion dollars over the past sixty or so years, and there's been little to no actual benefit from the investment.(1)

Take a look at this handy dandy graph as well

That graph is from 1970-2000, and once again, I will remind my opponent I never put up an argument for investing more money into the African continent, but since he keeps bringing it up, I now have to address this argument. Lets examine the chart you put up....



What you seem to think, is that the correlation is a bad sign. It is indeed, a good one. The amount of aid we send decreases in correlation with the amount of growth of per capita. Notice the highest growth in both aids and GDP is during the time when we had sent the most aid? The problem is though, I never wished to argue putting money into the picture. I have no desire to help Africa. The whole point of the debate is to show how it will mutually benefit Africa and the US, and thus far, half my points have been dropped.

First you're evaluating my case, which Jifpop hasn't put a single response to other than it's philosophy and that's not what he wanted to debate. Since next round is the final round and he can't respond to it then, you negate the resolution on the basis that we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, and since his case is trying to reduce suffering you instantly reject his case, which means you're voting con.

Ignoring the ad-hominen, my goal is not to end suffering as stated above. The goal of economic investment is to produce revenue within our own country while benefitting them at the same time. Audience, please note, that my opponent has not argued resolutions 2-4, leaving all of these unattended.

"No it is. I just decided to say f*ck it and beat him at his stupidly slanted topic." -Zaradi

Argument 5: American Investors have voted in favor of increased investment.


Of course the most important opinion in a democracy, is the one of the people. Through the ITA and Department of Commerce's SelectUSA poll, the majority of entreprenuers were choose Africa as the place to focus FDI (Foreign Direct Investment). Compared to other countries, we have a low amount of stock tied up in Africa, with most of our FDI caught up in Asia and South America. But, according to our educated business people, they wish to see more FDI put into the African continent. You can read more about it in the DOC's SelectUSA official publication. [1]

This argument should defeat all others against proposed investment within the African continent. But, I' sure thats not enough for some audience members. The International Trade Administration, has officially included more direct investment into its 2012 trade plan. Arguing it as a prioriety. You can refer to Chapter 3 of the ITA's report here. [2]


Argument 6: Investment in Africa increases a 18% loss in American FDI

One thing to be noted, that after are FDI rate went down 18% in 2012, the ITA's publication year, the US had actually increased FDI in the African continent. As you can see by this chart, is that FDI has increased substantially since 2003, and ignoring how it doesn't go to 2013 (Where it increased to an all time high), that FDI is becoming more and more profitable. [3]




If that is still not enough, we can take a look at our global export rates to Africa. With a projected 114% increase in African good being sent into the US, it goes to show that we are becoming more and more reliant on our African imports, yet we have no security in these tied up investments. We could lose 10's of billions in a matter of days, due to a lack of naval presence, diplomatic relations, and unrest within the region. Also, I would like the audience to refer to this graph showing the 74% increase in American goods going to Africa. The untapped markets have the potential to be richer then that of Asia, and according to the graph, we are the most behind in African investment. [4]




We have such low stock shares in Africa, and this could be an immediate problem for the US. I hope my opponent now understands that this debate isn't about helping Africa, but increasing the revenue stream between our nations. I don't see the relevance in constant arguments against humanitarian aid, which I agree, should be decreased.

Argument 7: The most profitable markets are untapped by FDI

The sad truth about Africa, is we don't send the Peace Corps or UN officers to help africa neccesarily, but to stop unrest from effecting economic prosperity. Even more intresting, is how Africa's largest growing GDP nations, are also the ones with the least investment. Britain and China has been quick to race for stock within these nations, but its not to late for the US to join the race.




Angola and Ethiopia, have two of the fastest growing markets in the world, and provide us with many valuable products like diamonds and coffee. For example, fair trade coffee and other imports, are now competing directly with South American companies, and are overtaking them in market share. The majority of your coffee is coming from Africa. It would be stupid not to join in on the economic frenzy, which is exactly what were doing. The ITA and Export.gov constantly push this issue. Here's the map of the vast increase in fair trade coffee importation from FRED... [5] [6]
http://research.stlouisfed.org...


Argument 8: USDA favors agricultural trade with Africa.

I'm sure the readers are aware, that Africa faces a large influx of yearly starvation and poverty. Yet, the US, Europe, and China force Africans to pay high tariffs for agricltural imports. When people are starving, they don't work. Nations that don't work fail to produce revenue. Removing trade barriers, will uplift millions from poverty, and stimulate the economy to an all time high. This debate isn't about tariffs though, and is about investing into Africa. By being the first to promote free trade in Africa, nations will favor the United States for agricultural importation, and the economy will skyrocket. The world bank estimates the thing thing, and its an all win no lose situation. Investing in more exportation to Africa, we can revitalize our agricultural economy in a decade. The current exportation of agriculture is increasingly low, and not meeting the potential according to FAO... [7]




Argument 9: Decreasing Petroleum Reliance in OPEC and NAFTA

The old saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in the same basket", which I believe I already alluded to. In the global world, there are only a couple places for a developed nations can get a reliable amount of petroleum from. Russia, India, Africa, or the middle east. All are importation is tied up in the middle east, which makes us economically dependent on them. The GOP seeks to imporve ties with Arab oil producers, while parties like the greens and democrats try to link us with other petroleum exporting countries.

As you can see by the following graph, Africa's largest oil producing countries, including Nigeria (Largest oil producer in the world), are ranked far below Canada and Saudi Arabia. We have an extreme reliance on these two nations, which could be migitated by investment with other oil producers.



Many of those nations we are on hostile terms with, and we are forced to regularly intervene with them. Its time to change course. Major oil producers like South Sudan and Angola can wield the same profit on more stable terms. We just need to increase our list of foreign oil producers while minimizing our reliance on NAFTA and OPEC oil. And since we have tariffed goods they want, we could trade at a much leveled playing field. [8] [9] [10]

Sources

[1/SelectUSA]
http://selectusa.commerce.gov...

[2/ITA 2012 Trade Plan]
http://www.trade.gov...

[3/Diverging Markets]
http://www.divergingmarkets.com...

[4/UN Press Release]
http://unctad.org...

[5/EuroMonitor Research Am.]
http://www.euromonitor.com...

[6/F.R.E.D Coffee Importation]
http://research.stlouisfed.org...

[7/World Bank Press Release]
http://web.worldbank.org...

[8/Peterson Institute Publication]
http://www.piie.com...

[9/Global Research Dependenct report]
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

[10/African Investment Summit (Oil)]
http://www.tgais.com...
Zaradi

Con

Two things to bring up:

First, my opponent went and extended the debate whereas the rules clearly state that we both had to talk about this and agree to it before saying that we would use round 4 for more arguments. He never did talk about it with me, nor did he ever "reserve the power" anywhere to extend it single-handedly. In terms of the rules for round structure, his entire last round can be read as a "thanks for debating!" message. But even if you want to evaluate them anyway,

Second, my opponent brings up a whopping five new contentional arguments in the final round of the debate (more than he made in the entire rest of the debate). And it wasn't as if he even didn't have space to put them, either. He only used 3000 characters in round two and 6000 characters in round three. This means that instead of using the combined 11k characters in the rounds where bringing up new contentional arguments is fair and legitimate, he waits until the last round, where we aren't even supposed to be making ANY arguments at all, much less new ones, to bring up more contentional arguments than he's made in the entire rest of the debate. I don't think I need to explain how underhanded and unfair that is. None of his new contentional arguments should be evaluated. But just so I can have some kind of response to them in case you do want to evaluate them...

All of them still bite into the harms of my case insofar as they're reducing the amount of suffering in the world. This leads me to a response that my opponent brings up that shows that he's, once again, not understanding what my case is trying to say. So let me be crystal clear:

My case is saying that any kind of reduction of suffering if bad. That doesn't just include humanitarian aid. This includes all of the positive economic impacts that my opponent is trying to extend off as untouched (even though they aren't untouched, he just hasn't really responded to anything that I've said). I even took the time out to point exactly where in each of his contentions that linked to my case, and he just ignores it. So insofar as I'm winning on my case (which I am since he hasn't even attempted to respond to anything about my case so far), I'm winning the debate because if my case is true, you instantly drop all of his arguments as my case functions on a higher level. What do I mean by this? All of his arguments, from sending to aid to Africa to earning the US more money rely on the assumption that without these we would be worse off (i.e. we would suffer more) and thusly to reduce that suffering we experience, we should take these actions. My case attacks that assumption, that we should be reducing suffering at all, rather we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering. And since I'm winning on my case and showing why we shouldn't be attempting to reduce suffering, then it doesn't matter how much money we could make if we invest in Africa, the harms of reducing suffering will always outweigh.

Also, just as a side note, I find it extremely humorous that my opponent is continuing to insist that he isn't arguing that we should invest money into Africa, while saying that we need to build military bases in Africa and build businesses over there, and that's all totally going to be 100% free. But outside of that...

This debate becomes super simple to evaluate as a voter because my opponent has done literally nothing in this debate other than complain. This is how the round breaks down.

First, you look to my case because it's questioning the assumptions that his arguments make. If my case is right, then his arguments don't have the opportunity to become right, because the assumptions that they rely on to possibly be true are refuted. You notice that he hasn't made a single response to my case throughout this entire debate, other than the fact that it's philosophy and not statistics. You say "Oh, wow he's conceded the entirety of Con's case! That's a stupid mistake on his part!" and vote con right there. But if you want to look further than that, you can go to the responses I make against his case, specifically that a) none of his arguments showed how actually investing into Africa would fix the problems going on in Africa or would actually lead to benefits in the US. He's just saying that x possibilities could happen, so we should take y actions, without showing you the link that says y actions will lead to x benefits. You also look at the stats that I provided you that show as investment into Africa went up, the GDP decreased and then as Investment declined, the GDP increased, which shows that investing into Africa has a NEGATIVE affect on Africa as a whole. Then you can also look to the argument that I make that explains how investing into Africa only exacerbates the problems that the population of native Africans are experiencing because it eliminates any possibilites of internal growth, making them entirely reliant on foreign goods and aid that they can't do anything for themselves anymore, which kills any kind of growth or positive impact that the affirmative could have. You look at this and say "Wow, those were unresponded to as well! What has pro been doing the entire debate?" and vote con there as well. Pretty simple.

Since I have 4k+ characters left, I'll go ahead and explain where each point of the seven points should be going and why.

Spelling/Grammar - Tied, anyone who actually votes on this thing is probably just looking for an excuse to strategically vote, anyway. Any grammar mistakes Jifpop or myself may have made were so minor as to not affect coherency.

Conduct - You're giving me conduct for two different reasons. One, Jifpop insulted the integrity of the site when he said that "You are certainly more popular among senior members, and I wouldn't be suprised if some vote for you no matter what", which insinuates that the site as a whole is dishonest. Two, Jifpop spends the vast majority of his final round making brand new arguments that he had plenty of space to bring up otherwise, which is incredibly underhanded and unfair.

Arguments - I'm winning this debate because one, my case is unrefuted and it shows how reducing suffering is bad and something we shouldn't be doing, which is what his arguments are trying to do, and two, none of the refutations I make against his case and arguments as a whole have been responded to, and each of them are disproving that by investing in Africa we're making any kind of positive impact, which means that not only am I winning on my side of the debate, but I'm winning on his side of the debate as well. Maybe if he didn't spend more than half of the time he actually debated (10k characters total) responding to my arguments instead of complaining (5k characters spent complaining), he would've actually had a shot at winning this debate...

Sources - Tied, although if you consider source bombing a fair reason to deny someone the source points I would say that in that instance I'd probably earn the source point.

Aaaaaand that's all I really have to say. Vote con! ^_^
Debate Round No. 4
271 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 2 years ago
WillYouMarryMe
such fun
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
Yeah... maybe that'll become my thing when I write RFDs.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Jesus....Your RFD is longer than Jifpop's 2nd and 3rd rounds put together.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Orangemayhem's RFD Iis longer than the actual debate. Congrats on having the longest RFD ever.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 1 of 10

This debate was primarily hindered by the set of rules published at the start of the debate by Jifpop, a set of rules which would go on to cause ceaseless diversions throughout the debate. As a reader and a voter, I found these rules to be extremely unhelpful. I spent large portions of the debate reading time flipping up to the top of the page to check whether something technically fell within the rules as put out by Jifpop. I have no particular desire to read through the Comments section, as there was only one stated and sanctioned use of the comments section as specified in the R1 rules " for the agreement (or lack thereof) that the debate would be extended. Moreover, the Comments section is for that and that only " COMMENTS. I"m not going to take sides on what may or may not have been said in the Comments but my position as a voter is that I am obliged to vote on the debate, and I have no obligation to sift through the comments. I see the Comments as being as removed from my voting as the Health Forum is " only where it is specifically mentioned do I see it as being relevant to the debate. This meant that a large part of Jifpop"s R3 went to waste due to the amount of it which referred to the Comments section. A voter votes on debates, not the running commentary.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 2 of 10

On the issue of the fourth round: given that Zaradi notes in his R4 that no such agreement to extend the debate was reached and Jifpop was using a reserve power that was not reserved to him (no such clause was included in R1), I will only be judging the first paragraphs of R4 and anything after that is illegitimate. (I have read the rest of the speeches, but if Jifpop is putting out all these bizarre and convoluted rules, then I will vote based on the rules set to voters and debaters alike).

The only other note on Conduct which I specifically want to address at this point is the "Cult of Personality" idea put about by Jifpop in R3. I do not recognise this as a valid argument in any way, shape, or form. As a voter, I find it demeaning and it does not in any way endear me to your position. The fact that this is an open-voting debate in no way legitimises an assumption that your debate will be littered with blind votebombs and people merely voting for your friends. Moreover, the fact that you specifically argue that senior members are likely to engage in this is an insult to all senior members. Though I am far from a senior member, all judges on a debate have an equal say in which way the debate goes and you do not have the right to argue that a judge is intrinsically biased. I am not blindly votebombing, and the question of alleged "popularity" is frankly a distraction. When you have people volunteering their time to write astonishingly long RFDs, to insult the judge is pitiful.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 3 of 10

Moving into arguments: as a general rule, I found that Jifpop"s way of setting out his arguments was not the best. I often had to reread his contentions multiple times before his line of reasoning became apparent. Furthermore, I felt the links between his various contentions were sometimes left too unclear to be immediately credited: Jifpop"s speech would have benefitted from further analysis of his reasoning, which would have been perfectly possible with 10K characters per round. I found myself agreeing with Zaradi on this issue. For example, whilst it may well be true that supplying food and water to the populations of Africa would have an effect on reducing unrest, this didn"t strictly fit in with the motion as defined. As was demonstrated by Jifpop"s regular referral to Britain, France and Holland, an increase in investment does not necessarily equate to a humanitarian investment. Moreover, were I judging R4, I would point out that Jifpop later went on to suggest that this aid should actually go into financing oil in Africa. The point stands, however: Jifpop made constant reference to the intervention of other nations without answering the question: "if these investments are not having an effect, why will America"s?"
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 4 of 10

I also take issue with Jifpop"s second resolution. The suggestion that the money to establish these new bases (something he warranted) by selling off bases in Europe and Thailand felt unwarranted and kept deliberately brief to hide it from criticism. Whilst these are not arguments made by Zaradi (due to the debate being derailed by the arguments over conduct) I felt like this suggestion could have been a debate in itself and, again, the link was missing over how selling off bases in Europe and Thailand was justified by the previous content of the debate. Although I do not dispute the problems which stem from piracy on the African coastline, at a time when Ukraine is in crisis and North Korea is constantly cooking up something weird I felt this decision to sweep aside US presence in these other parts of the world was unwarranted" but Zaradi didn"t point any of this out, as most of the first speech was dropped due to the allegations over conduct.

Similar problems persisted in the third resolution: this time, Jifpop completely dismissed the idea that South America had any relevance as an economically developing area. I felt that the point Jifpop was making here contradicted itself: whilst talking about the extent to which the African market was at risk of being dominated by European powers and arguing that the USA needed to invest quickly, there was no mention of any competition in South America. Again, whilst this is a debate which is specific to the USA"s investments in Africa, I did feel that the importance of Africa was often overstated at the expense of any other part of the world being afforded any relevance. Again, not arguments made by Zaradi, but arguments made to illustrate the problems with Jifpop"s Africa-centric worldview.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 5 of 10

We then moved on to Zaradi, who certainly did not make the arguments that I expected him to make. I do feel a certain sympathy for Jifpop here: the arguments made by Zaradi did take the debate in a different direction and look at the debate from a completely different perspective. I also empathise with his frustration at the proportion of Zaradi"s speech in this round which was made up of various different quotations. As a note to the debaters, my note as a judge was that I had no problems with looking at the issue from a philosophical point of view " indeed I favoured it " but I"m not here to judge what Nietzsche said, I"m here to judge the way in which Nietzsche"s views can be shown to be applicable and relevant to the debate at hand. Whilst Zaradi did make an effort to explain the link between his quotations and his stall in the debate (and therefore his case), and I did understand and register the link, I felt the balance was wrong here. Zaradi mentioned that he used all of his 10K characters in that round bar 35, and this round did feel that it was stretched slightly too thinly. Had there been 1500K less of quotations and more of elaborating on these quotations and how the individual thinkers would look at Africa (I did feel they were all slightly lumped together), this argument would have been much easier to credit. I also noticed the extent to which the quotations were chopped about " this made it feel as if they may not have originally have fit your argument as snugly as your editing implied.
Posted by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
RFD " 6 of 10

Despite that, however, there was never any doubt in my mind that it was a perfectly legitimate argument to make. For Jifpop to argue that he intended this to be a practical debate is, to my mind, slightly irrelevant. It"s not irrelevant because Zaradi is known for using philosophical arguments " I believe that debates have to be taken in the context of the debate, and unless it is specifically mentioned the rest of the DDOniverse should be seen as irrelevant " but because nothing was said in R1 about the scope of this debate or what arguments could/could not be made. Every factually correct argument is inherently a valid one until it is knocked down by the opposing side; to look at the debate from a different perspective is creative but it is not cheating. Indeed, I found it refreshing to see Zaradi look at the debate from a different angle because otherwise the debate would have become about two people throwing statistics at each other. The problem with two people throwing statistics at each other is that if one person gives a statistic, and then uses it to justify an argument, then all the other person needs to do is a quick Google search and they can return a completely different statistic, and then you have stalemate.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible conduct on the part of Pro, Con made a good point about the acetic world view, Pro missed a good opportunity to address this and instead responded with a truly poor attitude, one I am really disappointed with and expected more from Jif.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't vote for either one. Both of you aren't tied for good conduct in my book. You're tied for poor conduct. Zaradi, as good of a debater you are, you ought not give the reasons why people should vote for whomever they vote for in the last round. Summarizing is one thing, but what you do is poor conduct. Summarizing and a farewell is what the last round should be for. Not a round to tell everyone why they should vote for you. It makes you look a little full of yourself
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Let me add that I had a hard time following the debate rules, but it's quite clear after examining both sets of arguments that conduct goes to Zaradi. Jif clearly violated his own rule in ROUND 4, by extending the debate and not consulting with Zaradi before doing so. Spelling and grammar was tied I felt, as were sources. As for who made more convincing arguments, that irrefutably went to Jifpop! First of all Con quoted Nietzsche way too much as if his philosophy has credibility that opposing philosophies don't have. I vehemently disagree. For starters, Nietzsche was a racist and stood firmly against egalitarianism throughout his life (egalitarianism is the view that all men should be treated equal). He believed that some people were superior to others (hence his affirmation of the "superman") and therefore they should have privileges that others should be denied. Jif's arguments were better supported with resources (not almost entirely by philosophy); he won firmly!
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD will be in comments. corrected vote for Sources requested being 1 point.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So...since I have to throw out round 4 as it isn't valid per the debate rules, I vote neg on the suffering kritik because Jif's impacts reduce suffering. Moreover, since Jif chose to spend almost his entire third round attacking Zaradi's conduct I can flow through the attacks that Zaradi did make on jifpops case. Even if I didn't buy the suffering K, I would still negate on the lack of solvency coming off the aff case. Not a very good debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Jifpop09ZaradiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Zaradi came up with an interesting argument, even if I disagree with it. Tragically, Jifpop never really rebutted Zaradi's case. Zaradi's only real contention (aside from a few practicalities thrown in) was that the reduction of suffering is undesirable. Jifpop continued trying to demonstrate ways in which US investment could reduce suffering. I found Jifpop's first arguments weak because they were just cited sentences with no analysis or explanation. Likewise, while Zaradi's case went mostly unchallenged, save for Jifpop's blurb in Round 3 that didn't really refute the case, most of it relied heavily on quotations from other people's work. Jifpop made some excellent, excellent arguments in Round 4. Whereas he had failed to demonstrate benefits to the US before, he pulled in a few in Round 4 (save for some short sentences saying the US already had investments there). However, I thought it underhanded for Jifpop to suddenly spring all these arguments on Zaradi. (Continued in comments).