The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
THE_OPINIONATOR
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,940 times Debate No: 15444
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Zealous1

Pro

I would like to affirm this position by presenting some facts, presenting a plan, and showing the advantages of said plan. The rules will be like policy.

Facts

Definition

1. USAID is an acronym for the United States Agency for International Development

Orphans

1. Russia has 700,000 orphans.

Russia has more orphans now, 700,000, than at the end of World War II, when an estimated 25 million Soviet citizens were killed.
(1)


2. Conditions are terrible for Russian orphans

Russia has over 700,000 orphans with only about 25% of them housed. By age 15 or 16 a Russian orphan will age-out of the orphanage system. They are sent back into the streets with about $30 and nothing else. Of course, due to poor conditions in the orphanages many of these kids run away long before they age out. More than half of these kids end up in jail or prostitution. A Russian orphan will have his passport stamped 'Orphan'. People do not want to hire orphans and do not want them marrying their children. They are considered outcasts. Only one out of 10 orphans will make it to their 21st birthday. (2)

This fact means that 630,000 Russian orphans will die before the age of 21.

3. Russia isn't doing a good job working on this problem.

In recent years, the Russian government has repeatedly pledged to bolster efforts to help families stay together, to increase the number of children who are adopted and to expand foster care. But it has not had notable success. (1)


HIV/AIDS


1. Russia has a problem with HIV/AIDS


Russia has one of the world’s most serious epidemics of injection drug-use, according to the World Health Organization and UNAIDS. It is estimated that Russia has two million injecting drug users, 60-70% of whom have HIV-related illnesses. In the past decade, the number of HIV-infected people has increased from an estimated 100,000 to over one million. (3)

2. Russia isn't addressing the core issue about HIV/AIDS

The Russian authorities have come under strong, widespread criticism for their policies aimed at dealing with the IDU/HIV epidemic. Education to control drug abuse has focused primarily on the promotion of drug abstinence. In addition, officials have relied on criminalization as the main deterrent. That approach has created obstacles to effective addiction treatment and HIV prevention. (3)

Foreign Aid is about to be cut

This new pressure point on the foreign aid budget comes as the administration is trying to reform the US development agency. To implement those reforms will need investment, not turning off the spigot. If a group of more conservative Republicans get their way, they will eliminate federal funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID). (4)

Plan

Mandate 1. The US will supply one billion per year to USAID to be used for aid to Russia

Funding: Ethanol Subsidies

Enforcement: GAO

Advantages

1. Humanization

USAID's Assistance to Russian Orphans program has reached over 80,000 vulnerable children in Russia, reuniting more than 12,000 with families (5)

In 2008, 80,000 russian orphans were helped with about 70 million dollars. By increasing Foreign Aid, we would be able to save even more lives.

2. HIV/AIDS Combated

USAID's HIV/AIDS program focuses on reducing the rapid growth of the epidemic in Russia by increasing access to best practices in HIV prevention, care and treatment. USAID projects are raising awareness about and helping prevent transmission of the disease among at-risk populations, especially injecting drug users and vulnerable youth. (6)

3. National Security

We can never forget that in meeting Congress’ first priority – keeping America safe – there is no better value than the one percent of the U.S. budget that is spent on foreign aid and diplomacy.

A poll commissioned in 2010 by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition concluded, “nearly 90 percent of active duty and retired military officers agree the tools of diplomacy and development are critical to achieving U.S. national security objectives and a strong military alone is not enough to protect America.” (7)

So, why vote for my position? For National Security, and to save thousands of lives. By voting on my side, you would save thousands of lives from HIV/AIDS, and thousands of orphans from life-eating poverty, while at the same time increasing our security.

Lastly, a message to Con: Please do not use semantics. This is supposed to be a policy type round, and semantics are not welcome. I consider them more to be a way to side-skirt actual refutation.

Thank you, and I eagerly await my opponent’s response.



Sources:

(1) http://www.nytimes.com.........

(2) http://goarticles.com.........

(3) http://www.thewip.net.........

(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk.........

(5) http://russia.usaid.gov.........

(6) http://russia.usaid.gov.........

(7) http://www.algemeiner.com.........



THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

Mandate 1. The US will supply one billion per year to USAID to be used for aid to Russia" The United states has there own problems to worrie about such as orphans, STDS and other things that we need to control. This 1 billion per year that we will be providing to Russia could be used to help ourselves. The United States always puts other countries problems before there own and this is another example.

HIV/AIDS Combated- We have our own AIDS/HIV epidemic to worrie about in this country. We need to focus on our own peoples well being before we help other countries with something they are responsible for dealing with. The prevention that we may try to teach may fail and it would be money wasted that we could have used for something else down the road.

National Security- Why would a countries attack us simply because we refuse to give aid and take our our own problems into consideration?? You have innocent people dieing in the U.S from disease, hunger poverty and being homeless. What is the sense of national security if a third of our population keep dieing all because we decided to help another country before our own.

Helping Russia would be a waste of resources that we need in order to improve things in our own country. I could see if we gave Russia money here and there but 1 Billion is way to much money that we don't have to give them. I ask that you vote CON because helping Russia is to costly and we need to fix our own problems before we fix their problems.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

Thank you for accepting and responding.

Sadly, all of Con's points were based on a misunderstanding of what we're debating today. You see, in a policy debate like this one, we debate status quo vs. plan. Con is status quo, I am plan.

What Con has done is used the logical fallacy "false dilemma" by stating that this money could be better used on us orphans. You know what? I totally agree that US orphans and US HIV/AIDS is more important. You're probably sitting there laughing at me. The reason I agree is because that's not what the status quo is doing with this money. Let's look at the funding: ethanol subsidies. The funding isn't "Money funding US orphans". In other words, in the status quo, US orphans are helped with who knows how much money. With this plan, that remains untouched. The only thing changed is ethanol subsidies.

Thus his points that our people are more important crumble. Now, you're probably wondering about ethanol subsidies. The reason I use ethanol as my funding is because ethanol causes inflation, hurts our national security, its cost exceeds its benefit 3 billion per year, and it's overall a waste of money. (http://oilprice.com...)

Mmhmm, Ethanol subsidies are bad. It's an advantage on its own: taking money from ethanol subsidies is good already. What makes it even better is taking it and giving it as foreign aid to Russia.

The amazing thing about this plan is that it causes no debt. It's not adding 1 billion in spending, it's DIVERTING 1 billion in spending. No extra debt for the US, but our national security is increased and lives are saved.

If you're sitting there thinking "why on earth would I care about Russia"? Advantage 3 is why. National Security for the US. I agree it's sad that there are US orphans, but the status quo isn't spending this 1 billion on US orphans. It's spending it on wasteful ethanol subsidies. So ALL of Con's points fall apart. They are based on a misunderstanding.

Con, I would ask that you bring up new points that are valid. Your points in Round 1 are fallacies.

Thank you, please vote Pro for our National Security and for lives saved.
THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

Thus his points that our people are more important crumble. Now, you're probably wondering about ethanol subsidies. The reason I use ethanol as my funding is because ethanol causes inflation, hurts our national security, its cost exceeds its benefit 3 billion per year, and it's overall a waste of money." Ethanol is a renewable recourse and it is made in the U.S. Ethanol will do four things improve economy, create jobs, secure energy independence and protect the environment.

Jobs&Economy- In one year of construction it will cost 60 million to build, the local economic base will increase by 110 million per year. Ethanol production will generate 19.6 million in house hold energy annually. There will also be an increase of 700 permanent jobs around the area of the ethanol plant. Tax revenue for local and state government will also increase 1.2 million per year. From the information above you can see that ethanol plants are expensive to build but they will create jobs and improve our economy greatly.

energy interdependence-Ethanol can reduce our need on oil that is shipped from over seas and help us save money. The currant 6 billion gallons of ethanol produced could reduce gas imports by more than one third, extending gasoline supplies when in full production. The production of ethanol were to increase to 7.5 billion we could reduce our oil consumption by 80,000 barrels per day. Ethanol could also reduce our trade deficit on crude oil, which has been steadily increasing.

environment-The use of ethanol could reduce environmental impact cause by fossil fuels. Ethanol could reduce the amount of carbon monoxide emissions by 10%-30%. Ethanol has helped decrease the amount of smog by 25% since 1990. The use of a 10% ethanol blend will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases by 12%-19%. Ethanol is more biodegradable and it is better for the environment.

My opponent states that Ethanol is costly and not very efficient. He is proposing that we take money not from the government but Ethanol. What he does not realise is that he is adding more trade debt by importing oil and choosing to take away from Ethanol subsidies. I ask that you vote CON because ethanol subsidies are more important than Russia's well being. Look at what Ethanol can do for the U.S. and we cant help produce it without these subsidies. Thank you for your time reading
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

Thank you for responding.

My opponent simply talked about my funding, Ethanol subsidies. He acted as if I'm cutting all of it. No, I'm cutting 1/7, since the total amount of ethanol subsidies is 7 billion, and I'm taking 1 billion.

But of course, that's still bad according to my opponent. Con provided some points on how Ethanol is supposedly "good".

First, I'd like to point out that none of these points had evidence. I cited a source, he did not. He can't just make claims about Ethanol because he says so.

Yet, I will not leave it there. Let's go through my source and see how it responds to all of his points already.

Jobs and the Economy

1. My opponent stated that ethanol plants are expensive to build. I'll get to that later.

2. There are other types of energy available. Nuclear, for one. We don't have to completely rely on Ethanol.

3. Those responses aren't enough, of course. I'll show you from the same source, (http://oilprice.com...), that ethanol is bad for our economy.

QUOTE "the costs of U.S. ethanol policy exceeded its benefits by more than $3 billion per year. Letting ethanol subsidies and tariffs expire as scheduled would have been a fine holiday gift for the U.S. economy." END QUOTE

Yup. That means we're losing 3 billion per year because of ethanol. Clearly it is not good for our economy altogether.

4. Note again that I have a source for this quote, but my opponent provided none.


Energy interdependence

My evidence clearly addresses this as well.

QUOTE " The trade effects of ethanol policy would be bad enough if they only involved the closing of U.S. markets to imports, but in reality, matters are even worse. When the effects of tax credits are added to those of import tariffs, they are, together, enough not just to block imports, but to turn the United States into a net exporter of ethanol. Ethanol exports are officially expected to run a record 315 million gallons this year, more than double the 2009 figure. True exports might be half again that if ethanol blended with exported gasoline is included. Exactly how do subsidized ethanol exports promote U.S. energy independence? Go figure." END QUOTE


Our independence is hurt by ethanol, not helped.

2. My opponent provided, again, no evidence so clearly he has failed to prove this point as well.

Lastly, environment

1. Yet again, my evidence addresses this.

QUOTE " One problem is that corn-based ethanol, the kind produced in the United States, saves little if any carbon and produces little if any net gain in energy compared with petroleum. Measuring the exact carbon and energy efficiency of corn ethanol is not easy. Different assumptions regarding technologies, fuels consumed in farming and distilling, energy value of byproducts like cattle feed, land use impacts, and so on, give answers ranging from small net carbon and energy gains to small net losses. But even the most optimistic studies give corn ethanol only a tiny advantage over petroleum, nowhere near large enough to justify the scale of current subsidies. " END QUOTE

2. This is getting repetitive, but again my opponent has provided no evidence to back up his claim.


"I ask that you vote CON because ethanol subsidies are more important than Russia's well being."

Con is ignoring my third advantage: National Security for the US. This plan doesn't JUST benefit Russia. It benefits the US as well. Ethanol is obviously terrible, so cutting a little bit of it is an advantage. Note that I"m not cutting all 7 billion, but just a little bit is enough to create an advantage.

In conclusion, I've shown how this plan is completely net beneficial for the US and Russia. It creates no debt, increases our national security, and saves thousands of lives. Con conceded that although US orphans are important, they are not an issue in this case at all.

Message to Con: Please do not bring up any new points, since this is the last round of the debate and I have no opportunity to respond to whatever you say. Because of this and the fact that you conceded round 2, you may only respond to the Ethanol point.

Back to you: Please watch the next speech closely. If Con brings up new points please note that. Also, I would encourage you to read over this speech after reading my opponent's. It will give you light as to whether he actually properly responded to my points or not. I have brought up credible evidence responding to his points which were not backed up by a source.

Also, please set aside personal bias when voting. If you for some reason believe that my plan is not a good idea, step back for a second. First, think over what I've said and try to visualize what makes you think it's a bad idea. But I encourage you to vote on the actual arguments, not on your opinion. The top two options are based on your opinion, but the rest are on our debate. If you feel that I have adequately refuted my opponent's points (which I believe I have), then I encourage you to vote for me. If you somehow feel that Con proved the point better, by all means vote Con! Don't feel like I'm demanding you vote one way!

Thank you very much for taking time out of your day to read this debate. I also thank my opponent for the fun time.

THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

http://www.ethanol.org... Here is the link that I have used and will continue to use throughout this round.

"There are other types of energy available. Nuclear, for one. We don't have to completely rely on Ethanol." Although this is true there are some things that nuclear will not power. You have cars, boats, planes etc. that would be too complicated to modify for nuclear power. Ethanol will help keep the cars that run on gas on the roads while making them more Eco friendly.

I am simply tired of my opponent throwing all of these quotes out and not giving the speaker credit. Sure you have a source, but how do I and the readers know who said them and if they are reliable.

I am not going to readdress what I have already stated in my last argument, I will however make my point on national security.

The U.S. is dependant on oil from over seas that we must import in order to function. This gives those countries a way to hold us by the collar simply for the fact that we need oil. Ethanol would reduce the chance for us to be held down by our need for oil. I do not see how the U.S. not helping Russia would compromise our national security. We already have adoption agencies that span the world to adopt kids from places such as Russia.

My opponent states that he is only taking 1 billion from a 7 billion dollar subsidies. What if that one billion is needed in the future? I would also like to point out that ethanol is relatively new which makes it more expensive to produce. The more popular it becomes the less it will be to produce.

I ask that you vote CON because the U.S. will benefit greatly from ethanol, and every cent helps a cause. I know that my opponent has worked to construct his debate to the best of his intelligence and for that I thank him for his time. I would also would like to thank the readers and voters. You read the arguments and you decide witch is better plan or status quo.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
It is, but OPINIONATER doesn't know policy.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Oh, well based off your plan argument and structure of the resolution I assumed it was policy-oriented.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Actually no Con doesn't do policy. He just debated me on this round.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
You think con has to defend the status quo? You're in policy, you should know what a counterplan is!
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
My opponent's source for advocating ethanol? Ethanol.org. That's just a bit biased, don't you think?

What was with asking for the author of the article? First, I don't need to give it to you because no one else does, second, I gave you the link so you can click on it and look at the name, and third, you didn't give an author either.

That last round was a disaster...

(If you're a voter don't vote on this comment because you're supposed to only vote on the round).
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
"I was going to run Reform Topicality, but I could just as easily argue that you are advocating the status quo. Your evidence itself suggests that funding has not yet been cut, thus you have no Inherency."

I figured so. I have plenty of responses to that, trust me.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 5 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
reduce to three rounds and IA will accept this time.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
So you do not know how to bold the words and underline :)?
Posted by Johnicle 5 years ago
Johnicle
I was going to run Reform Topicality, but I could just as easily argue that you are advocating the status quo. Your evidence itself suggests that funding has not yet been cut, thus you have no Inherency.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I think the way you would debate this would annoy me, so please don't unless you change your philosophy, lol.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Zealous1THE_OPINIONATORTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated it was a Policy round (I'd reccommend drawing more attention to that next time Pro. Also, policy rounds are a bit more difficult to do around here. But kudos for trying.) Con didn't argue as if it was a policy round, and failed to show the flaws in Pro's plan.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Zealous1THE_OPINIONATORTied
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: PRO presents his plan, which is not necessarily linked to the debate topic. Con deals with the topic.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Zealous1THE_OPINIONATORTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Refer to past voters
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Zealous1THE_OPINIONATORTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As blackvoid pointed out. Con dropped the ADs.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Zealous1THE_OPINIONATORTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped everything other than ethanol in his last 2 rounds, and this concedes all advantages to pro. Pro's evidence also preempted cons arguments.