The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,251 times Debate No: 23434
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (15)

 

Zaradi

Pro

This debate is for 16k's debate tournament.

The resolution is as follows:

The united states should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

I will be affirming the resolution. Vmpire will be negating it.

Round structure is as thus:

1. Acceptance
2. Cases only
3-4. Rebuttals and defense

Some basic ground rules:

1. Dropped arguments = concessions
2. Forfeited round = 7 points to the victor

Let's get this going.
vmpire321

Con

Accepted. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

First: Before any other evaluation of the resolution we must evaluate the effects on human ontology that the resolution has. Campbell writes[1]:

“the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is Any mode of thought always already carries an ontology sequested within it. What this ontological turn does to other- regional – modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review demand[s] a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy.”


I affirm. The thesis of the affirmative case is that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering via assisting others is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being. Eugene Long[2] explains the way humans exist:

“we exist in the future that is coming towards us. Our being is such that in the present we recollect the past and anticipate the future. Our transcending or becoming, however, comes up against many boundaries along the way which set limits to our transcending or becoming. Suffering stands over against our transcending, our acting the process of becoming in which we act to realize some state of affairs that we desire and through which we find meaning in existence, the experience of suffering appears to be the opposite of activity. Suffering may bring us up against our finiteness and suffering may be accommodated into our human becoming. for example, that although we would not have sought suffering we are better persons for having undergone the experience of suffering”

Thus, the way in which humans exist is through the experience of suffering in order to know the distinction between gods and humans. This allows for human becoming and transcendence to happen. Long 2[2] explains why suffering is needed:

“suffering is necessary to a greater good or that it will be transformed or overcome in the future by a greater good. persons are called not only to condemn such evil and suffer with those who suffer, but assume responsibility for working for new possibilities for good. Human suffering on this account is at one and the same time an experience of emptiness or nullity and the giving or loving of Being, the on-going creative activity or providence of divine reality. In this giving of Being in reaction to the suffering of beings in the world”

Thus suffering allows prospering over future problems; the on-going creative activity of the divine reality, which allows people to come to their fullest being This proves that suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings. The suffering of others calls us to question who we are what actions we take as human meaning that it is necessary to understand the true function of being a human. This argument functions as an apriori because it disproves the assumptions the affirmative framework is founded upon.

Additionally, confronting notions of death and suffering is how individuals conceptualize good and bad and this confrontation is the only reason why life has value Strauss[3] explains:

“Dasein is the term to speak of individual human consciousness, and is Unique among entities in that it puts Being itself Death, in turn, puts the whole of Dasein's own being at stake. In part, this is because death is "nonrelational," which is to say that no one else can represent me or stand in for me at my inevitable demise. Dying is something that I must do for myself. I am therefore alone in the face of my death, and that mortal isolation informs me of my separation from others, makes me aware of my finitude in relation to them. The non-relational character of death, as understood in anticipation, individualizes Dasein down to itself.” I’m capable of being a whole to myself, and I actually do become whole to myself through my attitude toward that death. it is that a privative limit can structure experience into subjectivity and existence into a life. One's relation to death is either authentic or inauthentic. In the latter case a person tries to forget that he is finite and must die by imagining that he is the same as the indeterminate The authentic Anticipation turns out to be the possibility of understanding one's own most and utter most potentiality-for- Being-that is to say, the possibility of authentic existence. The ontological constitution of such existence must be made visible by setting forth the concrete structure of anticipation of death. The structure of our relation to death makes our authentic individual existence apparent to us as a whole, and it is, consequently, through anticipating death that we authentically exist as whole individuals.”

Thus it is necessary to confront death in order to find meaning in life.

This case ties in with the resolution as assisting others with their suffering causes a lessening of suffering, which ruins the value we place in life. In order to return the value to life, we must end all assistance to Pakistan.

This case has a few implications and a few impacts on the debate here.

1) I’m affirming the resolution by providing a valid reason why we should not assist Pakistan and should end all current assistance.

2) This pre-empts any arguments my opponent may make that without assistance, life will get worse for Pakistanis because without suffering, we wouldn’t be able to categorize something as better or worse, since we would not be able to place any inherent value in life.

3) My arguments are going to function on a higher level than my opponents, as they question the assumptions that normative arguments take for granted. So if my opponent doesn’t read a countering meta-ethical or ontological argument, you can prefer my case as more indicative of the truth.

Thus, I must urge an affirmative vote.





Sources:

[1]
Campbell & Shapiro 99 (Michael, and Campbell, professor of International Relations at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, p. 97-8) google books

[2] Suffering and Transcendence Eugene Thomas LongInternational Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol. 60, No. 1/3, Self and Other: Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion (Dec., 2006), pp. 139-148 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org...

[3] Jonathan Strauss. “After Death.” Diacritics. 30.3 (2000) 90-104.

vmpire321

Con

==Introduction==
I agree with my opponent that suffering is required in order to achieve the greater good.

"Aid" hurts the recipients

Both my opponent and I agree that to win this debate, one must show who will bring about the most possible suffering
.Furthermore, all of the benefits of keeping aid (havingPakistan crumble) that I will state now will not be possible if we were to suspend assistance.

My opponent hasn't provided any argumentation yet to as how exactly removing aid will harm Pakistan. H. Mahood, a PhD scholar and lecturer writes:
"Foreign aid is bad for political process as natural resources become bad for natural resource-rich countries...Foreign aid and natural resources have the common features of exploitation by corrupt politicians." [1].

He also writes:
"Reinnika and Svensson studied the survey of primary schools in Uganda and found that only 13% foreign aid for education reached to the schools and rest was exploited. Knack documented the pattern of corruption with foreign aid, as aid dependence increased, accountability would decrease, domestic corruption to disburse the aid fund would increase and there would be weak institutions. Knack and Rahman found that the greater the foreign aid with respect to GDP the greater would be corruption levels and weak democratic and bureaucratic performance." [1]
As more foreign aid flows in, corruption in the government will increase.

Overall, foreign aid has little to no impacts on the countries. Lack of good coordination, high transaction costs, and failing government alignment has led to the undermining of the sustainability of national development plans, the distorting of priorities, and the diversion of scarce resources and/or establishing uncoordinated service delivery systems [2].

Peter Heller, a Deputy Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, says:
"Maureen Lewis on HIV/AIDS programs notes obvious dependency issues, including a reduced incentive for aid recipients to mobilize domestic resources; the potential for economic agents—whether in the government or the NGO sector—to tailor their priorities to the perceived interests of donors; a reduced pressure for governments to address inefficiencies in how public services are delivered; resistance by governments to a greater private sector role in delivering services; and the potential for increased corruption and rent seeking. Finally, countries relying heavily on aid inflows give up significant autonomy in decision making on budget priorities."

Basically, foreign aid takes away from the responsibility of the government, inviting laziness, corruption, and bad decision making. Also, aid allows bad governments to stay in power.


"In some circumstances external aid can fill so great a proportion of civilian needs for food, shelter, safety, and health services that significant local resources are thereby freed up for the pursuit of warr. This economic substitution effect of aid has a further political impact. When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control. Even if they started with a commitment to peacetime political leadership, as the international aid community takes over the tasks of feeding and providing health services and shelter for civilians these military-oriented leaders increasingly relinquish responsibility for civilian welfare. They focus on military ends and, over time, define their roles solely in terms of physical control (and the violent attainment and maintenance of that control). As this occurs, warriors struggling for victory over space and people lose all interest and competence in civilian affairs and become increasingly ill prepared to assume broad, responsible leadership in a post war period" [3]. Self-explainable - aid shifts the responsibility of leaders and allow them to wage war.

"...development aid can exacerbate social tensions, encourage bad policy making, make governments less accountable to voters, intensify competition for resources, and feed processes of structural violence in a country, ultimately empowering the very elites who benefit from exploiting marginalized segments of the country..." [4/5].
In Rwanda's situation, the aid that was sent directly resulted in a corrupt and genocidal government slaughtering an ethnicity.

A study found that reliance on local resources is actually more beneficial then foreign aid [ Aid delivered bythe US Government will only increase rent-seeking and cripple economic development. In fact, aid leads to dependency and hinders the development of the economy. It is likely that Pakistan's condition will improve after we withdraw aid.

Pakistan is also not an ally.

There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that they are not allies.

An example would be the IPI pipeline. The general plan to build the IPI pipeline would strengthen Iran's importance in gas/energy markets in Asia [5]. Pakistan has tried to perhaps even accelerate the building of the IPI pipeline, while the US have demonstrated their obvious opposition to the pipelines [5].

Pakistan is also becoming increasingly inhospitable to the US due to drone attacks. The general public has grown hostile towards US attacks, because of the many innocent lives lost [6].

Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. The US public image in Pakistan is obviously bad.
Public support for the use of an army to combat extremists have also been steadily declining [7].

However, it is not only Pakistan that has been 'unfaithful'. Pakistani leaders have grown angry at America's support of the quickly growing India [5]. Other accounts include the "sale of U.S. military hardware and provision of civilian nuclear technology assistance to India" [5] and Obama's endorsement of a permanent seat in the UN for New Delhi. India is seen as the greatest threat to Pakistan - a majority of 57% [7]. In the eyes of Pakistanis, the USA is teaming up with their greatest enemy.

In the end, Pakistan is destined to be our enemy. By continuing to give them aid, we slowly destroy them without ever having to launch an attack.

==Conclusion==

1) Keeping aid will prolong human suffering (and taking away aid will reduce suffering)

2) Pakistan is an enemy, meaning that we wouldn't be hurting an ally.

Vote Con ;)

Sources:
[1] http://www.waset.org...
[2] http://www.fightingmalaria.org...
[3]Mary Anderson, President of the Collaborative for Development Action, Inc, DO NO HARM: HOW AID CAN SUPPORT PEACE OR WAR, 1999, p. 49-50

[4]http://books.google.com...
[5] http://www.ips-dc.org...
[6] http://www.csmonitor.com...
[7] http://www.pewglobal.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

While my opponent's case looks like it's a good fit to refute this case, there's one fundamental flaw in my case that makes his case null and not actually linking into my framework, but rather the harms. But first, I'd like to define aid, and why this trainwrecks my opponent's case in so far as she's trying to show that she's increasing suffering.

Aid is defined as "to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end"[1].

This means that by giving aid, my opponent is actually providing people with things that are helping them, regardless of what corruption it causes in the government or laziness it will induce, it's still helping someone. Insofar as she's still helping people, then it's impossible for her to be able to promote suffering, as she's still helping people. My opponent may try to extend out her Mahood evidence to turn this in her favor, but I'll explain to you in a second why that evidence actually doesn't help her case, but rather hurts it.

Next, there's a key piece of my argument that my opponent is missing that she's trying to link into, but is causing her to fail. My case, and framework, doesn't actually advocate for the ADVANCEMENT of suffering (i.e. increasing the world suffering), but rather returning things to their natural state. By giving aid, regardless of whether it increases or decreases suffering, it is a distortion from the natural flow of suffering, and thus ruins the value of life. Only a return to the normal flow can we ensure life has value. Thus, the only way we can return suffering to the normal flow is by ending assistance to Pakistan, as ending assistance will return things to the normal flow of suffering. This is a game-over mistake for my opponent, as she's triyng to show that she's making MORE suffering, which isn't what my framework supports. Insofar as she's trying to link into my framework, as long as she continues to advocate for an increasement of suffering, she's failing to link in and thus has no offense, as her case basically functions as a turn to my case.

Next, let's look at the Mahood evidence. Let's look specifically at the part where it cites a statictic of 13% of aid reaches it's intended target. Frankly, it doesn't matter WHERE the aid ends up insofar as it still provides aid to someone. She's trying to use this as evidence that aid is better for suffering, but regardless of where the aid ends up, it still aids someone, and thus reduces suffering.

With all this said and done, it takes out all of my opponent's arguments up to the point where she claims that Pakistan isn't our ally. Let's pick up there.

"Pakistan is also not an ally."

This fact holds no relevance to the debate. One's ability to provide aid isn't dependent upon if they are friends with someone or not. I can still give someone a dollar, even if that person hates me.

This actually can be turned against her because if this is true, then it only gives Pakistan more incentive to take all of the stuff we offer them, as it weakens us and strengthens them. If someone you hated offered you their lunch money instead of threatening you for yours, would you decline it on principle that you didn't like that person, and thus wouldn't take their money? Of course not! You would take it because you hated that person and didn't want them to have it! The same principle can be applied here.

With all of my opponent's arguments refuted - Oh wait! I forgot the ones about causing war, which causes more suffering. Let's adress those and show how it causes her to further fail to link into my case.

Let's look specifically at the Strauss evidence, as it tells us our encounter with death is what gives us life. As we continue to encounter death, we continue to find value in life. What happens when we no longer are able to encounter death (i.e. we're dead)? We can't suffer anymore, and thus can't have value in life. This means that since my opponent is promoting war as a result of negating, she still fails to link into my case, and thus falls flat again.

Now with all of her arguments refuted, I urge voters to extend my arguments and affirm the resolution, that because we need to return suffering to the normal, natural flow, we must end all assistance to Pakistan.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
vmpire321

Con

==Introduction==

I will not be attacking my opponent's arguments in any way, because I agree with them. Mainly, I will be defending my contentions (sorry if this seems short)

*Also, I found it annoying how you responded to my argument about aid leading to war in the wrong section. :P


==Defending my arguments==


C1: Aid hurts the recipients

My opponent claims that even if aid is ineffective, some of it will reach it's recipients. However, the majority of Pakistan are suspicious of aid workers - claiming they are spies and demonizing them [1].

The LA Times writes, "Nongovernmental organization visa requests languished or were outright rejected. New travel restrictions hampered aid workers' movement. Some workers were arrested and harassed." [1].

Political leaders also have a reduced incentive to improve a situation where large amounts of foreign aid is involved [2], and a study found that local governments will begin to reduce spending in an area where foreign assistance is being provided [3].

Not only is the "aid" going to disappear due to corruption most of the time, but the local government will no longer concentrate in that area. Ultimately, the locals are going to suffer more than benefit from "aid".
Although there still is the possibility have aid will help to some extent, people are still prevented from achieving the maximum amount of aid.

Also, my opponent is misunderstanding my argument. By increasing suffering in specific parts of the world, we are actually returning things to their "natural state". By continuing on the path that humans are pursuing now, we will begin to see an unnatural decrease in suffering caused directly by humans - which will take away from the current value in human life.

By attempting to increase suffering, we are able to undo the mistakes committed by the past, who believed in reducing suffering as much as possible. These two actions cancel each other out, resulting in a more stable situation.


Continuing on to my Mahood evidence, my opponent misunderstands my argument. The fact that most of the aid doesn't reach the majority of Pakistan (who desperately need it), coupled with the fact that the government will naturally decrease spending in an area that foreign aid is being delivered to, reduces the amount of help that the Pakistanis would normally get, increasing suffering in terms of net benefits.

Also, by increasing bad decision making and inciting laziness in the government, we take away from all areas together.

Foreign aid can directly lead to war, which will result in heavy loss of human life. War is a natural cause of suffering - conquest and conflicts have always been in human history and part of human life. By prolonging the existence of war, we are able to understand the importance of life.



C2: Pakistan isn't an ally

I never questioned our ability to give aid, but I noted the obvious benefits of hurting an enemy. Of course, the ability to harm isn't dependent on relationships. However, it is more beneficial for us if we harm an enemy, not an ally.

Also, my opponent's argument of how Pakistan becomes strengthened from aid and the US is weakened is obviously false. *coughcough I had an entire contention on how aid hurts people coughcough*
The "lunch money" example provided by my opponent isn't valid, because the way he painted aid as isn't correct.

A more accurate depiction of aid would be something like cocaine. It isn't something beneficial (like lunch money) that we are offering Pakistan, but a harmful substance such as cocaine (that may seem okay on the top).


By ending assistance to Pakistan, we are basically helping our enemies.


==Conclusion==


In the end, by increasing suffering, we are countering any reduction in human suffering that we have experienced lately. We must understand the difference between unbalancing and rebalancing. And, as an added benefit, we would be destroying one of our enemies.



Sources:

[1] http://articles.latimes.com...

[2] http://graduateinstitute.academia.edu...

[3] Kelly Jones, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies SAIS REVIEW, 2005

[4] http://www.csmonitor.com...

[5] http://www.foreign.senate.gov...

Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

As this is the last round of debate, I'll refrain from posting new arguments (and ask that my opponent does the same), but instead will merely refute my opponent's new claims and expand on points already posted before giving a summation of the debate.

So what this debate is ultimately going to come down to is who has the better link into suffering, as we both agree that we must do something to protect the value of life, which we both agree comes from suffering. Where we disagree is how we go about protecting this value. While my opponent is claiming that increasing the levels of suffering will do this best (she also claims that I agreed with this, which is false, I specifically advocated AGAINST it), I think that preventing the LOSS of suffering while not increasing it is how it will. But ultimately, this is the main issue that my opponent is having:

My opponent is trying to link into my case, which advocates for the flow of suffering not to be changed, i.e. not increased or decreased. My opponent is advocating that suffering should be increased. Thus, my opponent cannot link into my case. This means that I have the best link into suffering, and is an instant affirmative vote. My opponent raises a point about how increasing suffering would cancel back for other advances of decreasing suffering, thus yielding a net zero, but the resolution is specific to Pakistan, so outside places and events (as my opponent is trying to use) are extratopical, and should not be considered when evaluating the debate. This is going to cancel out my opponent's last prayer at linking into my case, which will ultimately cost her the debate.

Furthermore, she drops the war turn, on how her promoting war via continuing assitance will lead to an increase in suffering, which further prevents her from linking into my case, and thus making her case basically irrelevant. Extend it out.

I'd also like to take this time to stress one key factor to the viewers of this debate before it goes into the voting period, as I get a nagging feeling a lot of people are going to end up misvoting because something was not clearly explained. In attempting to copy my framework of suffering, my opponent is attempting to gain offense off of my case being true, i.e. "link into it". But in order for her to do this, she must show how her case follows what my case is saying TO THE LETTER, but proves her side instead of mine. As my case is advocating for a non-change to the flow of suffering, a.k.a. keeping suffering in it's natural state, and she is advocating for a CHANGE in the flow of suffering, a.k.a. increasing the suffering, this means that she isn't following my framework, i.e. not "linking in". As the entirety of her case is structured around having this link, this is catastrophic for her in terms of the round and the overall debate. If her case isn't linking in, then she CANNOT GET OFFENSE from ANY piece of her case. This means if I have disproven her link into my case (which I have in multiple places), then she loses the debate. But even if the link does exist, she must be winning sufficient offense from her case in order to win. Even if the link is still there, if I'm disproving a majority of her case, she still loses the debate.

At this point, because I have already shown how she isn't linking into my case, her case basically becomes irrelevant at this point, and you affirm because my case is the only one that stands (as my opponent conceded to it in an attempt to link into it). EVen though technically I can stop here and would still (probably, ignoring horrible votes) win the debate, I will go to a few things that my opponent has claimed and talk about them with my remaining 4000+ characters.

My opponent does one MASSIVE slip on her part by conceding that aid CAN and sometimes DOES help people ("Although there still is the possibility have aid will help to some extend...."). This is a disastrous error on my opponent's part, as it shows that from her advocating to increase suffering by continuing to provide aid, she actually DECREASES suffering, thus a) continues to fail to link into my case (insta-loss), and b) contradicts the entire advocacy of her case (insta-loss). She may try to say that I purposefully avoid the content that it doesn't maximize the potential amount of aid, but the very fact that aid exists in her system and that aid is beneficial in some situations means that she WILL be decreasing suffering as a whole.

Then lets look at my opponent's defense of Mahood. She seems to think that if the majority of aid doesn't get to Pakistan, then Pakistan suddenly isn't helped out at all by the aid they DO receive, and thus her point is valid. This is logically bankrupt reasoning. If I send 5 dollars to someone through the mail, and four dollars get stolen on the way and end up in the LRA's coffers, that doesn't mean that the LRA just gained 5 dollars. The 1 dollar that wasn't stolen still ends up in my friend's wallet. So even if 87% of aid doesn't reach Pakistan, that 13% that DOES get to Pakistan will reduce the suffering of Pakistan (as my opponent already conceded that aid helps people, see above). Furthermore, she drops the second part of my analysis that shows that the 87% that DOESN'T reach Pakistan doesn't just drop off the map: it still goes somewhere. Going back to the money/LRA example, if I send 5 dollars to my friend, and four are stolen, those 4 dollars don't just vanish from existance, never to be spent on anything ever again. It gets redirected to the LRA, who use it to fund a privatized jihad in Africa. The same line of logic can be extended into the resolutional situation. Even if 87% of the aid never reaches Pakistan, wherever it ends up will still be reaping the benefits of receiving the aid, thus cause a decrease in the overall amount of suffering. This means the the Mahood evidence a) still doesn't prove anything, and b) it further shows that she is decreasing suffering, and thus not linking into my case (insta-loss).

My opponent tries to re-extend the war example, but never answers back the refutations I put against it how the Strauss evidence says that our encounter with death is how we find meaning in life. If we are dead, we can no longer encounter death. So the high casualties my opponent is espousing through war will only decrease humanity's ability to encounter death, thus reducing our ability to suffer, thus decreasing suffering. This only FURTHER shows how she isn't linking into my case (which is an insta-loss).

My opponent tries to respond to the point that our relationship to Pakistan doesn't really matter by saying that it would still be more beneficial to us, but still misses the entire point of the argument, which says that her entire point is irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's more beenficial to us or not, it still doesn't affect our ability to give or take away aid, and thus is irrelevant in the debate.

As lunch is almost over and I'm running out of characters, I'll wrap up here and give a summary of the round and why my opponent is going to be losing.

1. My opponent must be linking into my case. This means that she must show that she isn't increasing or decreasing the natural level of suffering, but rather keeping the natural level the same. Since I have proven that she both claims to increase suffering AND decrease suffering, she cannot link into my case. If she cannot link into my case, then her case becomes irrelevant, as it requires her to have some sort of offense coming from my case in order to be feasable, and she thusly loses the debate.
2. As my opponent has conceded my case, she MUST show how she isn't deviating from the natural flow of suffering. If she can't do this, then she fails to link into my case. My opponent is not doing this, but is rather advocating for a change in the levels of suffering in the resolution. Because of this, she cannot link into my case, and thus cannot win.

The resolution is affirmed.
vmpire321

Con

Nice debate ;). I thank my opponent for a great time.

Anyways, I will not post any new arguments, and I will mainly use this debate for summarizing and somewhat justifying/defending my arguments.

Reading over my opponent's summarization of the debate, I agree with him on the idea that suffering is needed to protect life. The disagreement within this debate is on exactly how much suffering is required in order to protect life.


==Summary==


My opponent's case as he said this round is, "I think that preventing the LOSS of suffering while not increasing it is how it will [should be?]."


One thing that I'd like to note is that his R2 post, aka his constructive speech, is specifically advocating that the minimization of suffering is wrong.

"I affirm. The thesis of the affirmative case is that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering via assisting others is wrong...."
-My opponent said in R2

At its core, the debate comes down between either lowering suffering (by removing aid) or increasing suffering (by continuing to give aid).
The flip of my opponent's statement would be that an increase of suffering is justified. Whether or not my opponent agrees with this statement is not relevant, because the other option (lowering suffering) is not a path we should take.
In the end, the only logical path for the US to take is to increase suffering.

Let's take some time to analyze why there are only two outcomes and what they are.


Apparently, both my opponent and I agree on the notion that the choice is split between stopping aid or allowing aid to continue to be delivered to Pakistan.

One important fact that I brought up in round three is that government naturally lower spending in areas that foreign aid is "helping".
What this means is that Pakistan's leaders will slowly reduce spending and the local government will help its people less.

I've also established that most of the aid is sucked up by corrupt officials, mismanagement, etc, and usually never actually reaches the people (proved earlier). Also, aid encourages more and more corruption, which will stop even more aid from achieving its original purpose.
Furthermore, when the aid actually reaches the average person, they usually are afraid/suspicious of it (proved earlier in the debate). This means that even more aid is lost due to the fact that the average person might not even accept it.
In the end, US aid is just a false hope.
Normally, the public receive help from the local government and their economy will gradually improve (but is currently dependent on aid and not improving) but even these benefits that are naturally given are taken away from the public with aid.
Aid robs the people of what they should get and barely gives them anything in return.
My opponent has been trying to say that aid will help to some extent, which is bad. However, the alternative, whereas Pakistan will undoubtedly improve from its current state without aid to hold it down, is even worse.

Basically...
Stopping aid will reduce suffering, because the burden that aid imposes is removed and the local people can recover.
Continuing to give aid will increase suffering, because as more and more corruption is introduced (and as the government's responsibility is taken away), war, genocide, etc is more likely to occur. The suffering of the people is also prolonged as aid steals from them.

**My opponent's plan fails at this point. He claims that stopping aid will neither increase or decrease suffering, but keep a natural state, is no longer possible. The solvency of his case is unlikely and disproved.
**My plan to increase suffering still stands, not to mention that my opponent has apparently accepted the reality that aid will increase suffering.

Now that has been established, let's continue.

Why prefer an increase in suffering in Pakistan?

I've explained before to as why an increase in suffering is preferable. I stated that humans are progressively reducing suffering through various methods, which is why an artificial increase in suffering is needed to balance the state of things.

*Note: I also added the fact that Pakistan is an enemy as an added benefit

What this means is that because humanity is improving living standards, less suffering is occurring.
In order to retain these benefits and our value for life at the same time, we should preferably increase suffering in Pakistan.

My opponent's own case also proves that a minimization in suffering is a bad option.


==(Somewhat) Defending my Case==


To be honest, my opponent is almost abusive when he claims that my case has to follow his almost "TO THE LETTER". The only part of his case that I supported was his round 1 argument - that lowering suffering is not right. Furthermore, even his plan doesn't follow his case (where suffering shouldn't be lowered). I've expained why earlier in this post...

My opponent claims that the plan will follow his case - which is false. Stopping aid will not continue a balance in the flow of suffering, but actually lower it.

His later claims that "increasing suffering is bad" is another subject we disagree on. He claims that my plan/case will not actually maintain a balance in suffering, however I've shown why my plan/case is the best possible path.

Also, my opponent also tried to say that a major fault in my case is that I "occasionally help people". What my opponent does not understand is that this is the best possible choice - there is no other way to increase suffering to its fullest.
Only the minority will reap any benefits from our aid, but everyone will be disadvantaged from giving aid to them.
In fact, I'd say that my opponent's plan actually decreases suffering more than mine.


Now about my Mahood evidence...
Here's my example on how the situation in Pakistan is playing out. Pretend that Pakistan (public, not government) is a student wishing to go to college. I (the US) wish to help Pakistan out. What do I do? To help out this student, I give 10,000 to my friend who then carries the money to the student. My friend spends most of the money while drunk and only gives 2,000 to the student. Now, in a normal situation, the student will simply go to their parents (Pakistan's government) and ask for money.
However, the student's parents have heard that I was giving their child $10,000, so they thought that the student didn't need any financial aid. Hence, they already spent all of the money that would have orginally been given to the student for college.
Now, in the end, the student cannot afford college, because I attempted to give them money.
Before hand, they could have simply asked their parents to pay and gotten through without any trouble.

Continuing on to my war example... The possible war breaking out will not affect our ability to value life. Perhaps the lost lives in Pakistan will not be able to value life, but those who witness it will be able to.
The rest of humanity can have an improved ability to find meaning in life, at the expense of some lives in Pakistan.
I've also already stated that war is natural and shouldn't be eleminated.


==Conclusion==


I think the main reason why the voters should vote con, is that my opponent's plan doesn't actually follow his case, while my plan is the best possible path. Increasing suffering is something needed to balance out the recent improvements in life that we've enjoyed - possibly costing part of our ability to value life. Not to mention that increasing suffering should be preferred over continuing to further take away from what makes us human.


My plan also provides benefits in the sense that we would be harming an enemy. In the same sense, we would be helping our enemies if we were to follow my opponent's plan.
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ok me, phantom, and vmpire won
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
"Hence, although suffering is bad, maximizing it is still good?"

No. I never said maximizing it WAS good. We must do what is necesary to keep the natural flow, not a thing else.

But whatever. I'm done. Everyone keeps voting for the same BS reason that I keep pointing out is BS, and I'm gonna drop because of it. That'll teach me to not use a complex case.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
I think RonPaul might have been supporting my idea of "artificial suffering"
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
suffering is bad, but the minimization of it is worse?

Hence, although suffering is bad, maximizing it is still good?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I guess a lesson to be learned here:

Never use a complicated case. Nobody understands it and will generally make horrible votes.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
-sigh-

Fvck this. It's like they skim through my case without reading any of the importance piece *Cough SPECIFICALLY IN LONG 1 WHERE IT SAYS SUFFERING IS BAD, BUT STILL NECESSARY Cough* That takes care of CiriK's bad vote.

As for Ron Paul, he didn't say ANYTHING against the natural suffering. He actually TRIED TO BETTER MEET IT.

Fvck this.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
lmao@ Rass.

inb4 zard argues
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
lmao@ Rass.

inb4 zard argues
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Sorry, on that last sentence, con should be pro. If PRO had defined aid to include only the US and used the Constitution however... Typo.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Con's arguments on suffering were better. He defeated pro's concept of natural suffering. On Pakistan's worthiness as an ally, that dosen't mean no aid, just responsible aid. Another win for con.

If con had defined aid to include only the US and used the Constitution however...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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: I can't. I can't just allow ron-pauls "vote" to go uncountered. I know that it this point it doesnt matter, but seriously.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I will post RFD in a few hours. Only have 3 percent battery left. Amend 1: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously? An RFD of "con right"? counter vb
Vote Placed by ras2000 4 years ago
ras2000
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con right
Vote Placed by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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: I vote Con based on the interpretation of the framework. It seems to me that if minimization of suffering is bad, the reverse of that (increased suffering) is good. The only potentially good piece of defense the Aff tries to use is this notion of natural suffering, however I say potentially cause the Aff provides no actual evidence for this claim. Insofar as that is true, I vote neg because corruption, internal suffering is increased.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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: I have to give it to Con. His argument from the need for suffering was stronger in my opinion.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments. (original vote is 4 points) counter daytonanerd. You have to provide a reason as to why you vote one way or another.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Just going with spelling and grammar, CON had better stats there, as this is my tourny it would be unfair to vote anything worth more then a point.
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 4 years ago
daytonanerd
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Because I read the debate, duh.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Zaradivmpire321Tied
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: Countering royal's "RFD". While the bomb was probably not intended, there is a vague understanding of the debate that actually ensued. The Pro arguments were mis-construed, by the voter, and the reasoning for voting against them non-sense. I do feel that the Pro's opening case was rather weak. That was like 1 contention, that wasn't even a contention. But he made up for it, by debating well for the rest of the debate. I don't neccesarily think he did better than Vmpire though. Just countering.