The Instigator
girr_29
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
astrosfan
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The United States Federal Government should help to modernize 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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 4453
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

girr_29

Pro

Round 5:
(Pro) girr_29
(Con) Astrosfan
Topic 14:
The United States Federal Government should help to modernize third-world countries.

I look forward to what should be a very fun round, and I would like to thank the judges before hand for taking their time to read through the debate. I know that time available to do these things can be very short sometimes, so I appreciate your time that you will put into reading this.

Since my cases are mostly based on the resolutional wording, my main 3 contentions will be based off the wording of the resolution.
I) Definitions of key terms.
II) The importance of the word SHOULD.
III) Why the government should help modernize third-world countries.

So let's start with the first contention then.....

I: Definitons of key terms

A) should - ought to.
(This word means that if there is something that ought to be done, it should be done. I wil further explain this word in the second contention.)

B) help - to make easier or less dificult, or to contribute to
(So what the pro side of the resolution tries to prove is that the United States Federal Government should make things easier or less difficult for a third-world country. Which I believe is what should happen, and I will explain that further as well.)

C) modernize - to make modern, or to adopt modern ways.
(So by helping modernizing third-world countries essentially what we're doing is improving the country by giving them things that will help them be more like a modern country.)

D) third-world - deprived nations of the world.
(Becaue third-world means deprived, we should try to help them become less deprived by making them modernized.)

All of these definitions are from the Funk and Wagnalls dictionary and they should provide good backing for the rest of the round and why you as a judge should vote for me.

II: The importance of the word SHOULD.

Should...as I discussed before implies that we ought to do this. And since this is a should resolution I don't have to prove the money issues that are involved in trying to help out third-world countries, because that's not the point of the word should or the point of a should resolution. Since it is a should resolution, our collective eyes must view it through a lense that lets us interpt what should be done, and what I believe should be done is that we should or ought to help modernize third-world countries.

III: Why the government should help modernize third-world countries.

Alright so this is where you as a judge have to vote for pro. Because this is the reasoning as to why the United States Federal Government should help modernize third-world countries.
Since the United States is such an advanced industrial society, and because we claim that we want to help out third-world countries, then we should help modernize them. The reason to help modernize them is quite simple, because it is the essential right thing to do, that fact can not be denied, so that makes it the essential thing the United States Federal Government should do and the thing the United States Federal Government ought to do. If my opponent trys to bring up cost issues, they are unresolutonal and they must be thrown out as arguments to be wayed in this round.

I will go more in-depth in my next round, but it appears I am running short on time. I want to once again thank the judges for their time, the opponent for what will hopefully be a clean, fun debate.

Thanks for reading thus far!
astrosfan

Con

Lets get down to business I will go in the same order as my opponent but I will add a new section laying out my case at the end

=========
Definitions
=========

Should- I agree with my opponent

Help- I would like to redefine as: 1: to give assistance or support to http://www.merriam-webster.com.... this why the pro side must prove why the US must act directly in the modernization of third world instead of just saying they use someone else to do the work

Modernize- I believe that the affirmative must defend the modernization of all parts of life including but not limited to thing like economic modernization, political modernization and social modernization. These are the normal standers used to determine development.

3rd world- the developing countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. http://www.nationsonline.org...

======
Should
======

I agree with my opponent on this point that I should not be arguing something like that there is no money to do this instead I will show how the US helping to modernize the third world will hurt these countries.

======================
My opponent's arguments
======================

I really have nothing to say against these arguments because not much is said what I'm going to focus on the negative effects that the US attempting to modernize third world countries.

=======
My case
=======

1. DEPENDENCY
a. assistance programs create dependency on foreign countries Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (Laurie, Foreign Affairs, January/February) http://www.foreignaffairs.org...

Few of the newly funded global health projects, meanwhile, have built-in methods of assessing their efficacy or sustainability. And nearly all have been designed, managed, and executed by residents of the wealthy world no provisions exist to allow the world's poor to say what they want all programs lack exit strategies or safeguards against the dependency of local governments billions of people, driven by a grand public and private effort comparable to the Marshall Plan -- or they could see poor societies pushed into even deeper trouble, in yet another tale of well-intended foreign meddling gone awry.

b. US ASSISTANCE TRADESOFF WITH LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND IT INCREASES THE RISK OF INFLATION, CREATING MORE POVERTY, MALNUTRITION AND HOMELESSNESS. Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (Laurie, Foreign Affairs, January/February) http://www.foreignaffairs.org...

massive infusions of foreign cash into the public sector undermine local manufacturing and economic development. foreign-aid efforts suck all the air out of local innovation and entrepreneurship. A more immediate concern is that raising salaries for healthcare workers and managers directly involved in HIV/AIDS and other health programs will lead to salary boosts in other public sectors and spawn inflation in the countries in question. This would widen the gap between the rich and the poor, exacerbate such conditions as malnutrition and homelessness while undermining any possibility that local industries could eventually grow.

Thus turning all of my opponent's arguments because by the US helping they create more problems COOKSEY, Tanzania Development Research Group, 2004 (Brian, DAC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FORUM IMPROVING DONOR EFFECTIVENESS IN COMBATING CORRUPTION Organised jointly by OECD Development Assistance Committee and Transparency International, 9-10 December) page 3 http://www.oecd.org...

As aid dependency increases, so the negative consequences listed above are likely to outweigh the positive. If the half dozen major hazards listed above grow more acute in direct proportion to the degree of aid dependency, To propose large increases in aid transfers without considering the potential negative consequences is breathtakingly reckless. More aid means more resources and incentives for cronyism, patronage and corruption.

2. Neoliberalism (for all you people out there that don't know what this is, it is the idea that by opening third world countries to the global economy they can help reduce poverty, but sadly this fails as I will exsplane in this next argument)

a. US aid programs are sending aid with a neoliberal mind set Sanders 01 http://www.choike.org...
Accompanying neoliberal reforms of the macro-economy have been health sector reforms. Key components include user fees, insurance schemes and introduction of managed competition; and rationing of health care through the identification of public health and clinical "packages", comprising a set of (often limited) interventions.

b. in Africa the effects of neo liberalism have cost the continent 272 billion dollars over the past 20 years Bonds 07 http://www.equinetafrica.org...
By contrast, rigorous studies and analyses now confirm the negative consequences of neoliberal policies Trade liberalisation has cost sub-Saharan Africa $272 billion over the past 20 years. Had they not been forced to liberalise as the price of aid, loans and debt relief, sub-Saharan African countries would have had enough extra income to wipe out their debts and have sufficient left over to pay for every child to be vaccinated and go to school. Two decades of liberalisation has cost sub-Saharan Africa roughly what it has received in aid. The first step to effect genuine growth and deliver resources to health services, welfare, and basic infrastructure is, instead, for African societies and policymakers to identify and prevent the vast and ongoing outflows of the continent's existing and potential wealth.

c. no the global scale these Neoliberal policies cause a global race to the bottom, because as more countries open to the global economy they are forced to compete with countries like China who's low prices force third world countries to lower wages in order to compete thus causing global poverty. Michael Hardt Antonio Negri 2004 Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire is Professor of Literature and Italian at Duke University Professor of Political Science at the University of Padua. (sorry that I don't have a link for this source but it is hard to find this book online)

Global capital, the argument goes, since it movement and reach extend well beyond the limits of national space, cannot be effectively controlled by the state. Many labor Unions protest the fact that the mere threat of the mobility of capital- the treat of moving jobs to another country were labor cost are lower. This creates a sort of race to the bottom in which the interest of society as a whole take a back seat to that of capital. Neoliberalism is the name give to this economic policy. Neoliberalism is not a regime of unregulated capital but rather a form of state regulations that best facilitates the global movements and profits of capital. The fundamental task of the neoliberal state is to regulate the capital development in the interest of global capital itself

So to wrap this up the reason that you as a judge are going to vote con is because while this may seem like the moral thing to do in the end it only creates more trouble for the third world then they already have because attempting to modernize them will only result in dependency and a spread of poverty because of economic policies
Debate Round No. 1
girr_29

Pro

girr_29 forfeited this round.
astrosfan

Con

so this next round is going to be short because i'm at debate camp right now and i don't have much time, but here we go

on the definition debate
1. extend my argument that help requires that the pro must actually act
2. extend my argument that modernization must be a modernization of all aspects of life.
3.extend that 3rd world refers to the developing areas of the world
these all are dropped and should be extended across

next on my case

extend that increased foreign aid will cause a dependency on it

then extend that the aid will trade of with local forms of wealth doom any chance of escaping poverty.

next extend that this turns all of my opponent's arguments because dependency on the US makes the problem worse.

next extend that the pro sends aid with a neo liberal mind set

then extend that neo liberalism has cost africa 272 billion dollars

and finally extend that neo liberalism cause global poverty

agian these all go conceded and extend them across
Debate Round No. 2
girr_29

Pro

Alright then, if you read the comments below I have been extremely busy. Right now I am taking time out of a vacation with my family and good friend Luke Cumbee (tournament director) to write this speech. The fact that I didn't write a second speech doesn't disqualify me, that is explained in the tournament rules. None of my arguments get dropped because I missed a speech, so do not let my opponent confuse you with that.

Since this is my last speech, it is essentially my crystallization speech. I will make reference to, and go over my arguments and my opponent's arguments, but since it is a last speech I will spend my time explaining why the PRO is the obvious winner at the end of this round.

There is a simple reason because of the WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION that I win this round. Despite all the arguments my opponent tries to make about why this is negative, there is a simple reason that as long as I point it out you as a judge are obligated to vote for the PRO.

Just a point about Definitions:
My opponent never strongly disagrees with any of my definitions, at best he just extends the definitions to make it sound like his are better, but mine explain each word thoroughly. The most important definition is should. I made that a point in my case which my opponent never addresses. He aggress with my definition, and that is key since it will prove why I win this round, but I will explain that shortly.

SHOULD:
This key word, that he agrees with, is the reason the PRO side of the resolution wins.
Should means what we ought to do. What the United States Government ought to do for third-world countries has nothing to do with his points about dependency or neoliberalism. All that matters in this resolution is what we should do. It does not say The United States Government helping modernizing third-world countries will create dependency and neoliberalism. If it was, then I would have to prove why with all factors why the Pro wins. But because the resolution reads The United States Federal Government should help to modernize third-world countries, all I have to prove is why we ought to help people. Since the obligation of the United States SHOULD be to help people, and since we SHOULD help third-world countries, then we SHOULD help modernize third-world countries. It's truly that simple. This resolution asks for us to look through a SHOULD world, not a real world. That is why my points still uphold and are the only resolution tools being used in this round.

I will restate my III. Contention just to show you why we SHOULD help modernize third-world countries.

III: Why the government should help modernize third-world countries.

Alright so this is where you as a judge have to vote for pro. Because this is the reasoning as to why the United States Federal Government should help modernize third-world countries.
Since the United States is such an advanced industrial society, and because we claim that we want to help out third-world countries, then we should help modernize them. The reason to help modernize them is quite simple, because it is the essential right thing to do, that fact can not be denied, so that makes it the essential thing the United States Federal Government should do and the thing the United States Federal Government ought to do. If my opponent trys to bring up cost issues or anything else like that, they are unresolutonal and they must be thrown out as arguments to be wayed in this round.

Judges, as long as you agree that we SHOULD help modernize third-world countries, then you should vote for the PRO side. Don't look at this resolution through the complications that my opponent likes to bring up with his points, because as I stated originally, look through this resolution as a SHOULD resolution, don't consider what might happen after, because it doesn't ask for us to consider that.

Since the resolution says SHOULD, and I prove why we SHOULD (look to my restated III contention), then there is no reason not to vote for Pro.

I thank my opponent for the round, and I thank the judges for taking their time to judge. Believe me, I know how crazy it can be to get things done like this, and I appreciate it greatly.

Thanks!
astrosfan

Con

Getting to the real debate

======
Should
======

I agree with my opponent that we should talk about whether we should modernize 3rd world countries but what my opponent fails to realizes is that my argument prove why modernizing third world countries screw them over and give a distinct reason why we shouldn't modernize third world countries and with that I will move on to the reasons why you should vote con

==========
The debate
==========

My opponent still concedes the fact that by the US trying to modernize these countries the will create dependency upon the aid that we give them and in the end they will be stuck in their situation of poverty and thus proving why we should not help modernize third world countries because it in the end just screws them over and has no benefit. So if you think about it USFG shouldn't modernize third world countries because it does more harm the good

On the neo liberalism argument the justification why you vote con is that one is that my opponent concedes the entire argument the expansion the neo liberal ideas will just cause global poverty which is a great reason for the US not to modernize third world countries because again in will just cause more poverty meaning that there is no reason to modernize third world countries because it just cause more harm the good

So to wrap the debate up you as a judge have to key reasons to vote con one is that my modernizing thirds world countries we create a dependency on the US that just screws them over, and because the act of modernization will put the third world countries at the mercy of the global capitalist system that will just create more poverty meaning to only option for you as a judge is to vote con
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
This debate was ridiculously unfair, seeing as how Astrosfan just went into his policy tub and pulled out some evidence... I used that Garret in '07 card pretty much every round.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
I really wanted to see a kritik on 'third-world' haha ;)

BTW I'm your first judge for this, I'm almost done...
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Hey guys, I'm Fasih Ahsan, your Judge # 2 in round 5 of:

14__girr_29________________Astrosfan
Luke Plutowski/Fasih Ahsan/Bhargav Bhrambhatt

I very much enjoyed this round, thank you for your courteousness. Again, thank you.

I have posted my decision and RFD in the group's (Online Debate Tournaments) discussion board, named "Debate Round 5 and Decision".

Thank you for debating,

--Fasih (bridpiercefan3334)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Pro won the moral argument but because one should vote on the debate, not what one personally agrees with, I was obliged to vote Con.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I failed to see how it would benefit those nations to be modernized. I did see Pro's stance that we should help 3rd world countries, but I did not see modernization being proven as the method of help.
Posted by girr_29 8 years ago
girr_29
oh man that sucks, i really wanted to get my second speech in but ive been really busy lately.
but nevertheless i will try to get my third speech in and in that case i do not automatically take a loss because the rules say i dont forfeit until i forfeit 2 speeches.
Posted by longjonsilver 8 years ago
longjonsilver
What a well prepared response. Great job astrosfan.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by righteous-reply 8 years ago
righteous-reply
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 8 years ago
longjonsilver
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
girr_29astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
girr_29astrosfanTied
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