The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Seeginomikata
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

The United States ought to focus on domestic aid, rather than foreign aid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,757 times Debate No: 43885
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

First Round is acceptance only.
Second is construction only.
No new arguments/rebuttals may be made in the final round.

The BOP is shared.

Please only accept if you will not forfeit.

Forfeitting more than one round constitutes a total loss.
Seeginomikata

Con

I accept the challenge.

This debate should be weighed on net benefits.

The side that can prove that their arguments would produce the most net benefits should win the debate.

The CON will argue that the U.S. Federal Government would produce an optimal amount of net benefits by focusing aid spending on foreign aid programs rather than domestic aid programs.

The con proposes that the term "focus" be defined as " A plurality of total spending and effort".
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my argument.


Definitions

Focus-to pay particular attention to. This is somewhat similar to the defniton that con offered. I contend, though, that for the purpose of this debate, focus will be regarding which type of aid would need priority if spending was increased (which aid should get more money) or which will recieve priority in the case of spending cuts (which should get cut the least).

Aid will be defined as spending that is related to the development of industrial potential, the improvement of living standards, or military assisstance.

What is ought will, indeed, be based on net benefits.


For this debate, the resolution implies that domestic aid must be the focus of all kinds of aid spending. As domestic aid currently occupies the majority of federal spending (figure 1), the resolution therefore is a defense of status quo. Pro must argue that current spending levels for domestic aid are favorable to lower spending levels in favor of foreign aid. Pro may also argue for the benefits of cutting foreign aid in favor of domestic aid. Con must argue that current foreign aid spending ought to be raised in favor of raising domestic aid spending.


Figure 1
Medicare and medicaid in this debate qualify as domestic aid. Defense qualifies as both foreign and domestic aid, and therefore will require in depth data in order to distinct how much is being spent by defense as foreign aid, and how much is domestic. Foreign military aid spending is defined as any US military base/establishment/group/operation that is currently active in a foreign country.


With my objective established, I will now tout the benefits of domestic aid.


PROS CASE


(I) America is in need of development

Subpoint A: US medical technology is falling behind

The United States is falling behind in our medical technology. A very common litmus test for the medical tech development of a nation is the countries infant mortality rate. The United States is ranked 34th on the UN list of nations rated by their infant mortality rate, number one being the nation with the lowest infant mortality rate. (1) Obviously, some countries report their infant mortality rates in such a way that skews their statistic favorably, but most of these are accounted for in the UN list. The US is behind developed countries, like Canada, Germany, Spain, The UK, and France, but the US is also behind smaller, less developed countries, like South Korea, Slovenia, Singapore, Ireland, Israel, and Cuba. The United States can garner much bnefit for it's citizens by improving the type of care available to its citizens. Improving the technology can also reduce cost, making care cheaper for the citizens of the US. This improves the standard of living, and can also be a good source of jobs, and economic prosperity. (2)


Subpoint B: The US Education system is not competitive

US students fall further behind every day. In 2012 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), a member of the OECD, tested students worldwide and published the results, ranking students by country, and their scores. The results are illustrated here.


The scores here are specifically for math, a core subject, and arguably the most important. NPR reports, "American Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the PISA findings a 'picture of educational stagnation.' He told The Associated Press that America needs to 'invest in early education, raise academic standards, make college affordable, and do more to recruit and retain top-notch educators.'"(3) An educated population is very beneficial to the country as a whole. It can increase economic productivity, and increases the standard of living. "According to the U.S. Department of Labor, educated citizens are more employable and tend to have higher incomes throughout their working lives. The more educated a community's population is, the better prepared it is to aid in the education of its youth, either by assisting its own children, or through mentoring programs within the community. Educated adults are better prepared to understand the complexities and necessities of bond issues, education reform, economic factors, and the political process, just to name a few."(4)


Subpoint C:
US Transportation Infrastructure needs improvement

In 2013, the ASCE published a "report card" as they do every 4 years, in order to gauge the relative effectivness of US infrastructure. In 2013, the card reported an average "D+" on our GPA, and they have been reporting these near failing grades since 1998. US infrastructure is in dire need of major improvement. The ASCE estimates that over 3 trillion dollars need to be invested before 2020 or we will see massive economic drag due to failing infrastructure. "Investing in infrastructure is essential to support healthy, vibrant communities. Infrastructure is also critical for long-term economic growth, increasing GDP, employment, household income, and exports. The reverse is also true – without prioritizing our nation’s infrastructure needs, deteriorating conditions can become a drag on the economy." (5)



(II) Foreign spending will ultimately benefit from increased domestic spending

Subpoint A: With a stronger economy the US can put more funds towards foreign aid

Improving the US domestically will, in many cases, greatly improve the economy, as my previous point has shown. With a stronger economy, the US government would then have the resources to maintain very high levels of domestic aid spending, while still increasing foreign aid spending. This is much better for those foreigners in need of aid, as the US (with it's domestic problems sorted) will be able to provide better aid to foreigners. With domestic aid prioritized, foreign aid will indeed benefit, but this benefit can only be garned by prioritizing domestic aid. If foreign aid was increased at the expense of domestic aid, the US economy would weaken, and spending in both categories would shrink. (6)

Subpoint B: With a strong domestic environment, the US can act strongly as a world leader


With a strong economy, and a very high standard of living, the US will hold more leeway as a world leader. Countries would be more likely to follow the example set by the US, and accept their aid. This means that the US would be able to more effectively aid those in need.


Summary
I believe that I have clearly shown that there are many aspects of domestic aid that could yeild very great benefit, thus the net benefits of domestic aid outweigh those of foreign aid.


VOTE PRO!



Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://advamed.org...;
3. http://www.npr.org...;
4. http://www.bizjournals.com...;
5. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org...;
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Seeginomikata

Con

Definitions

A The term "Aid"

1 Exactly why the pro's definition is wrong


Government spending on domestic development is a responsibility. The Pro is trying to argue that your paycheck counts as aid, since your employer is giving you money. A paycheck is not charity, it is a fundamental part of your working contract based on mutual exchange, labor for wage. We give the government legitimacy in the form of obeying laws, and paying taxes, and in exchange, government administers and rules the land as mandated by elections. The government does not create a budget out of the good of their hearts, they do so because they were elected with the express purpose of using public money to fund large-scale national projects that cannot be done through private means, such as a military force for common defense or a national health-care system. Thus government spending is not aid. It is not a gift. It is a basic right that is owed to the people in exchange for their taxes and loyalty.

The figures of aid that we should be using for the purposes of this debate should only include non-essential and optional gifts based on altruistic motive. This includes scholarships, charity funds, disaster relief donations, food drives, and the like.

Thus, the pro's figure of $3,539 Billion should be ignored by the judges. But more importantly, the pro's points of developing U.S. education and medical science should be ignored, since that is already a responsibility of the domestic government, and can not be accomplished by charity.

2 Why the pro's definition is abusive

The base mandate of any democratically elected government is to ensure the rights of its citizens. Under the pro's definition, aid is classified as basically any and all non-foreign spending. In the case of a democratic government, total government domestic spending is inherently more important than any kind of foreign spending.

What the pro has done is an attempt to bend the definition of the terms to inherently and unfairly favor the pro's side, instead of leaving room for a proper debate.

B The term "focus"

Focus: center of attention and activity. Synonyms: Nucleus, core.

The title of the debate explicitly uses the word "focus". According to the dictionary definition of focus, either one or the other center of spending would make up the "core" of all aid spending, thus implying a majority, or plurality of all total aid spending.

If the instigator wanted to mean "favor" or "preference" instead of "focus", then it should be assumed that the title would have been worded differently. Since the title says focus, coming into this debate, all participants and voters must assume the proper definition of "focus" will be used.

Arguments


I Why things should change

1 Status Quo

Only a small fraction of total federal budget spending is spent on any kind of aid, foreign and domestic. All the large departments spend necessary money (read non-charity). The only real categories that relate to charity in the Federal Budget are Corporation for National and Community Service, and Other Spending that is not specified. I will give the “Other Spending” the benefit of the doubt and put it in the “aid” category of non-necessary spending.

Corporation for National and Community Service: $.8 Billion

Other spending: $19.3 Billion

$19.3 + $.8 ≈ $20.1 Billion.

Foreign Aid, according to USAID foreign economic aid: $31.7 Billion. However, much of this money is in fact investments and loans, not actual charity. It is questionable if actual free aid adds up to even as much as a Billion Dollars.

In short, despite the significantly large budget of trillions of dollars, less than $30 Billion goes towards any kind of aid.

2 U.S. vs. World development

Currently, most of the word lives in a relatively underdeveloped state, with hundreds of millions living in abject poverty, lacking access to education, medical attention, food and even proper drinking water. People living in well developed areas do not suffer from these problems nearly as much. The more developed areas in the world there are, then on average, all of humanity will become more advanced as a species. Being advanced as a species not only secures us short term comforts in our individual lives on the planet, but also opens possibilities of greater achievement beyond the planet. Becoming as advanced as possible is one of the haphazardly pursued goals of humanity, as evidenced by our developmental pattern. Thus spending money to make as many areas as possible developed helps fulfill this goal and achieves the greatest amount of net benefit.

The U.S. stands in the elite groups of most developed countries in the world. It is currently the only Super Power, and one of the Five only Great Powers in world. Since the U.S. is one of the most developed countries in the world, efforts to further develop the U.S. would suffer from low efficiency, while it would be much more efficient to develop the vast underdeveloped regions of the world. This is a logical assumption based on the fact that it is much easier to play catch-up than to innovate by ones’ self.

II How things should change

1 Major budget change

Mandate: Increase funds available for aid donations

Funding: Budget cuts to the military

Timeframe: 5 year plan. Most of the project could be completed within one or two years

Since this debate is an “ought to” debate, we should focus on what should be done ideally. Since this is a plan of action, I have fiat, which means any part of my plan than can be implemented will be implemented.

Estimates place U.S. military spending at just under $1.1 Trillion. For the sake of the debate, I will stick to the popular and conservative under-estimate of $800 billion.

The U.S. spends approximately 4.35% of the GDP on the military.This extravagantly large military spending should be diverted to aid. Reducing spending to an amount more fitting towards actual self-defense rather than global military domination poses no direct harm the U.S., and would only negatively affect the U.S.' ability to beat down underdeveloped countries as the world’s policeman, while instead the U.S. could uplift the world with aid donations.

Even successful military Great Powers such as the UK and France spend significantly less money than the U.S. and still retain the ability to go on the offensive in any part of world without compromising security at home. The UK and France spend about 2.45% and 2.25%, respectively, of their GDPs on their military. The rising military competitor of the U.S. is China, which spends 2.0% of its GDP on the military.

Thus, the U.S. % of GDP spent on the military should be halved to about what the other Great Powers of UK, France and China spend. From 4.35% to 2.2%. Since the U.S. has the largest GDP in the world, even a parity in %GDP spending means the U.S. would still outspend any military competitor, meaning the U.S. would not have to fear losing its military advantage.

Halving the would reduce military outlays from $800 Billion to about $400 Billion.

2 Implementation of available resources

Having freed up $400 Billion dollars, with reality check, perhaps a full half of it will be allocated to parts of the budget that currently suffer. With that extra half of $400 Billion cut, it can be assumed that education, infrastructure, social welfare and other facets of society would be improved to a degree that negates the need for large quantities of aid.

The world is much larger than the U.S., and thus there are many more options that are possible, many more great achievements that can be accomplished, many more people than can be raised up. For example, ending world hunger could cost anywhere between $30 Billion and $45 Billion dollars, leaving us $155 out of the original $200 Billion to toss around.

For these reasons, even if we increase domestic aid and charity substantially, spending more of that money outside on the world at large would produce the greatest average net benefits that just spending it on the American homeland.

Con argument for alternate definitions

In the event that the judges interpret aid to not be free gift or charity, but to be any kind of funding for any kind of development, I will make the special effort and attempting an arguement to suit that possibility.

The plan of action still stands, and any further increase in revenue should be directed such that a majority of the new revenue be directed towards foreign aid. For example, should the tax base of the U.S. federal government grow by 2x, at least x amount should be put towards foreign development. This spending would start out on the order of over $200 Billion dollars. In effect, the con plan would create a new “department of global development”. Such a department is only fitting for the country that leads the world as the sole Super Power.

Recap of arguments

The pro wants to stick with the status quo. The con has suggested a new plan of action.

Status quo: $30 billion in aid, both domestic and foreign. Con’s plan: over $200 Billion in aid globally and domestically. Con provides more net benefit.

Pro wants to spend more money domestically than abroad. Con proposes to spend more money abroad than domestically. Since more development can be achieved in the non-developed world than the already-developed world, Con provides more net benefit.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.cia.gov...

https://www.cia.gov...

http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)

http://www.deliveringdata.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

Defining Aid

"Government spending on domestic development is a responsibility. The Pro is trying to argue that your pay check counts as aid, since your employer is giving you money."

This is classic straw man fallacy. Con attempts to forcefully create a position that is much more tenable than his own. Your employer gives you money, because you work for that money. The government provides services, because the people agree to pay taxes to recieve these provided services, although many claim that the government should not provide these services (see Ron Paul). Con attempts to argue that you are entitled to roads and education from the government, but this is not true. We are not guaranteed these services by the constitution. The government provides these services in order to aid the American people. The purpose of the American government is to protect your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, therefore, public services (such as road construction, education, or other pieces of public infrastructure) are not essential, and therefore qualify as based on "altruistic motive" as my opponent says. Roads, education, and public power are all provided "altruistically."

My opponents definiton of aid, though, does dip into semantics, and should be disregarded by the judges, as Altruism, and the role of government, and what exactly is guarenteed in the social contract between citizens and government, are all subjects of lengthy debate, and therefore we cannot use the Cons definition of aid. Therefore, I will provide practical definitons for both aid, and focus.

Aid-to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end (1)

Focus-a main purpose or interest (1)

My opponent brings his own definitions of focus without sourcing, an attempt at a red herring to distract judges. My definitons have been provided by Merriam-Webster, and therefore are authoritative in this debate, given mopponents unsourced definitions.

My points regarding the development of Infrastructure, education, and medicine, therefore stand, as they fit the definition of aid, as all three are services provided to achieve an end.


Rebuttals



(I)"In short, despite the significantly large budget of trillions of dollars, less than $30 Billion goes towards any kind of aid."

The truth of this point is difficult to ascertain, as my opponent fails to properly cite his sources in his argument. Even if this point were true, it is irrelevant. Spending less on domestic aid doesn't mean that the poorly spent money in foreign aid will suddenly be spent more efficiently. In fact, this could be argued against foreign aid, as my opopnent has shown that foreign aid is typically spent ineffeciently, and therefore is wasteful.


(II)"Currently, most of the word lives in a relatively underdeveloped state, with hundreds of millions living in abject poverty, lacking access to education, medical attention, food and even proper drinking water. People living in well developed areas do not suffer from these problems nearly as much. The more developed areas in the world there are, then on average, all of humanity will become more advanced as a species. Being advanced as a species not only secures us short term comforts in our individual lives on the planet, but also opens possibilities of greater achievement beyond the planet. Becoming as advanced as possible is one of the haphazardly pursued goals of humanity, as evidenced by our developmental pattern. Thus spending money to make as many areas as possible developed helps fulfill this goal and achieves the greatest amount of net benefit."

This is reasoning is, at best, shakey. The US government should ALWAYS do what is best for its citizens first. Just because other parts of the world can be developed more efficiently than the USA, does not mean that we should prioritize their development. The citizens of the United States gain very little net benefits from developing poor countries other than perhaps a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside. Meanwhile, American children are recieving shoddy education, and Americans across the nation are dying of illness, when they could easily be living, and well educated. Furthermore, if you cross refence this point with my own argument, you will see that domestic aid is superior here as well. This is because a more developed United States can more efficiently provide foreign aid. (See point II of Round 1)


(III)"This is a logical assumption based on the fact that it is much easier to play catch-up than to innovate by ones’ self."

This is a false comparison. As you can see in my previous argument (See point I of Round 1) the US itsself has to play catch up! We would only need to innovate if we were #1 lowest infant mortality, #1 in education, and we had an A+ from the ASCE. We need to catch up. We need to develop domestic infrastructure.


(IV)"Funding: Budget cuts to the military"

This isn't a policy debate my friend, you don't create a plan.


(V)"Con’s plan: over $200 Billion in aid globally and domestically."

If con means to spend on foreign and domestic equally, then he violates all definitions of focus that have been given, and therefore invalidates his argument.



Summary

Con's argument lacks substantial reason to give foreign aid, other than "efficiency." The bulk of the Cons argument is either A) semantics or B) his "plan" the majority of which is irrelevant to this debate. I have, however, shown what exactly needs improvement domestically, and I have shown how exactly it will garner benefits. Furthermore, my opponents use of sourcing is unorganized and difficult to understand, as the Con does not reference directly to his sources when making statements. He rather makes sweeping statements, and provides a cluster of sources haphazardly at the end. The con provides very minor net benefits, as the Pro provides very large net benefits for the citizens of the US, and even the world.

1. The US is in need of development in many key areas
2. A developed US will garner massive benefits from these areas.
3. A developed US can provide foreign aid more effectively, while still maintaining high domestic aid spending


VOTE PRO!




Sources
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Seeginomikata

Con

Rebutals




I. Definitions




Aid




All my definitions come from the same English Dictionary, as stated in my previous argument. The Pro is the one that is trying to spin the interpretation of the terms to create more favorable conditions for his/her argument.




1. Direct interpretation



“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


The Con argument that the Constitution does not guarantee infrastructure, welfare and development is wrong. It is directly stated in the constitution that government should provide for its citizens. Imagine if the government left bridges to collapse under the pretense that it was “not their problem”. We would definitely disagree. Imagine if illiteracy ran rampant and less than 30% of all people were educated at even a middle school level. “Not my problem,” says the government. It is their problem, it is their responsibility. Anything short is pure folly. The government must provide for development and welfare as one of its basic requirements because, at the very lest, that is what the people of America currently interpret it to be, as justifed by current policy and voting patterns




2. The purpose of the Constitution




While the Constitution does provide for “general welfare”, the Constitution as a whole is very vague. This is for a very good reason. The Constitution is not the set of laws that govern the country1. Shocking! No, the Constitution is the set of laws that govern the powers of government. Originally it was created in order to ensure that people’s rights would not be infringed by an overbearing government. This is a simple and effective method of preventing autocracy and maintaining democracy.



The Constitution does NOT determine policy. It does not enumerate the various responsibilities of government and the services it provides to the people. There is absolutely no mention of any of the departments of state in the Constitution. Since such things are not enumerated in this all-important document, does that mean we should interpret it as:



Since there is nothing in the Constitution about a law against murder, I can legally kill whoever I want!



Since there is nothing in the Constitution about driving regulations, I can ignore all traffic law and drive any vehicle regardless of whether I have a permit or not and regardless of my age, be it 10 years old, 30 years old, or 90 years old.



The Pro’s logic is fundamentally flawed because the Pro is forcing an interpretation of the Constitution that is not in accordance with reality.




Conclusion to Definitions




Thus, since aid means free gift, and since the vast majority of development is basic right and not charity to citizens, it is proved though the analysis of government outlays that only $30 billion dollars of any aid is delivered by the Status Quo, and not the entire federal budget.



As for the Pro claim that my facts are not sourced, that is a simple lie, as my sources are in fact present in my “sources” section.




II. Arguments




1. Pro Argument One: America need development.




A. Reality Check on technology


America is not falling behind in technology. In fact the opposite is true. America is at the very top2. The country that generated the greatest number of patents per year is the United States3, and every year and number of patents submitted increases substantially without fail.



The US is far ahead, and extra donations to technology wouldn’t provide nearly as much benefit as giving direct help to the technologically under-developed world.



B. Reality Check on Education




The United States education system performs at average levels and sometimes above average, compared to developed countries. The United States is far ahead when compared to all countries4. The Pro used a graph to try to demonstrate the US being behind, but this graph places the US and about average, in only one category out of many to compare, and against the very best of developed countries.



The Pro tries to make a point of saying that “US is also behind smaller, less developed countries, like South Korea, Slovenia, Singapore, Ireland, Israel, and Cuba”. South Korea and Singapore are amongst the top developed and richest countries in the world. South Korean infrastructure and education is the cream of the world. Slovenia, Ireland and Israel are European developed countries that benefit from socialist-inspired heavy government investment in public education and other public services. Cuba, one of the world’s few remaining communist states, while underdeveloped in infrastructure, has placed a huge emphasis on education and has one of the highest per-capita degree ownerships in the world making it one of the most educated places on the planet. If there are types of not-so-small, not-so-underdeveloped, way-advanced-in-education countries that the US can be compared to on an equal basis, I would say the US is in a pretty fair condition.



The real places that need education are the impoverished masses of South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In terms of net benefits, creating an education where there once was none > improving and already satisfactory education.




C. Improving Infrastructure



Infrastructure always needs improvement. This is because the government has purposefully chosen roads that decay quite quickly over roads that last. This is done for economic reasons (more people to hire) and meteorological reasons5.There currently are methods of making roads that last for decades, but we simply chose not to implement such methods.

Infrastructure is crumbling, because its designed to crumble.



Rather, money should be sent to places that have no infrastructure at all to speak of, such as places in Africa where people depend on wells dug in the ground with shovels for drinking water.



2. Pro agument Two: spending on America helps the world




In my previous argument I’ve already given reasons as to why this is a fallacy.

Simply put, this is thinly disguised Trickle Down Theory, that giving money to the rich will somehow help the poor. In reality, the rich keep the money and the poor never see much it ever again, while they continue to starve. Has mass consumerism in North America and Europe lifted Africa and South America out of poverty? No.



Spending money at home does not necessitate that the benefit will flow outwards abroad.



III. Counter-Rebutals





“fails to properly cite his sources”



My figures come from detailed and official government records. I can not be the one to blame if the Pro is incapable of noticing my perfectly visible “sources” section.





“Just because other parts of the world can be developed more efficiently than the USA, does not mean that we should prioritize their development.”



Since whichever side that provides the most net benefit wins, CON wins this point as PRO concedes that developing the outside world would be more efficient, and thus that spending money outside the Unites Stares rather than inside would generate more net benefit.





“a more developed United States can more efficiently provide foreign aid”



The United States is already developed enough to properly give whatever aid it choses to give.





“this isn't a policy debate”



False, the Pro stated itself “the resolution therefore is a defense of status quo”. If one side choses the Status Quo as it’s plan, it is the burden of the opposition to provide a counter-plan. The Con counter-plan to the Pro’s Status Quo is to make a point of showing how more net benefit could be achieved by increasing foreign aid. In doing so, it is my responsibility to show where the funding of such money would come from. A plan is the only logical choice of action in a “Ought to” or “Should” debate.





“If con means to spend on foreign and domestic equally, then he violates all definitions of focus that have been given, and therefore invalidates his argument.”



Just in case this need clarifying, my point is to demonstrate how the Con plan generates a superior amount of money available for aid spending, and that such money can bring about a huge gain in net benefit, both domestically and foreign, whereas the Pro only provides small benefit in a purely domestic setting. The Con plan assumes that the majority will be spent on foreign aid.



More importantly, the Pro’s attack on the wording of an argument that would otherwise be clear demonstrates that the Pro was unable to attack the heart of the Con argument. The Pro could not provide counter arguments against any part of the Con plan, and thus judges should interpret the above statement as a concession to the validity of the Con’s plan.




Conclusion




Pro plan: $30 billion in aid v.s. Con plan $200 billion in aid.



To make clear: The Con can do everything the Pro wants to do, and much more. The Con clearly provides more net benefit.



VOTE CON



Sources:

1.http://constitutionality.us...

2. http://www.thetoptens.com...

3. http://www.mapsofworld.com...

4. http://www.edweek.org...

5. http://www.straightdope.com...




Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

tylergraham95 forfeited this round.
Seeginomikata

Con

Pro accidentally lapsed his round. For fairness, I skip my turn as well.
Debate Round No. 4
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for forgiving my embarrassing concession.

Definitions

Aid and Focus

The definitions I have provided are the primary definitions provided by merriam webster. The judges will have to decided which definitions they choose to accept.


The Role of Government

Many public services could be privatized today without violating the constitution. No where does the constitution explicitly state that education, proper medical care, and infrastructure will be provided by government, only that those things cannot be denied of the people. The body providing it is immaterial. The true answer to the question of the role of government and social programs is indeed the subject of lengthy debate. For the purpose of this topic, judges should keep both interpretations in mind.



Con's final rebuttals, and closing remarks of Pros case.

A. Reality Check on technology

This entire point has very little relevancy to the availableness of proper medical techonology. The amount of patents produced in America yearly doesn't mean anything if our infant mortality rate is high. A focus on domestic aid would increase the availability of advanced medical technology, thus improving the American standard of living. The comparison of U.S. patents produced annually and the level of average technological development is totally absurd.


B. Reality Check on Education

My opponent means to assert that being below average is acceptable. This is not true. As a world superpower, the US should strive to ensure that its citizens are among the most educated in the world, if not the most educated in the world. You can't simply say, "we're below average, so that acceptable, because were close to average." You have to start funding the education of the future of your country, to ensure that its future citizens are bright enough to create a stable economy, and a favorable government. The attitude Con would have you take is to allow the US to fade into the background, and become some paltry country with a sub-par economy and citizens with sub-par education, when the US could thrive and lead the world, thus having larger net benefits for foreign aid.


C. Improving Infrastructure

If this point were true, then why would the American Society of Civil Engineers be campaigning for increased spending on infrastructure? This rebuttal makes no sense! I have shown that our failing infrastructure will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars. This rebuttal in no way discredits this point.


D. "Simply put, this is thinly disguised Trickle Down Theory, that giving money to the rich will somehow help the poor. In reality, the rich keep the money and the poor never see much it ever again, while they continue to starve. Has mass consumerism in North America and Europe lifted Africa and South America out of poverty? No."

This is a false comparison. Totally 100% false. The reason the rish keep money in trickle down economics is because they save the cash. Developmental aid creates a stronger country, and economy. With a stronger economy, the government recieves more tax revenue. With abundant tax revenue, the government can spend more money on foreign aid. Therefore domestic aid ultimately helps foreign aid.

Summary
Con fails to properly rebut any of my arguments. Therefore, I forward them all, as they are all DROPPED. As the coming round is the final round, my opponent may not attempt to create new rebuttals against these points. In order for the con to win, he must prove that the net benefits of foreign aid outweigh all of the net benefits I have enumerated.



On my own rebuttals


(A)"My figures come from detailed and official government records. I can not be the one to blame if the Pro is incapable of noticing my perfectly visible “sources” section."

To clarify, what I meant was that though you may have listed sources, you did not cite them in such a way so that readers and myself can see what statistics are backed up by what sources, making it difficult to discern what is fact, and what is not; this casts doubt on much of your argument.


(B)"Since whichever side that provides the most net benefit wins, CON wins this point as PRO concedes that developing the outside world would be more efficient, and thus that spending money outside the Unites Stares rather than inside would generate more net benefit."

This is a purposeful misinterpratation of my argument AKA Strawman fallacy. My opponent is attempting to misconstrue my words in order to make it seem that I agree that foreign aid has higher net benefits. To clarify, take this example. The US has 1,000$ to spend in aid. They can choose foreign or domestic. If they chose foreign, they would achieve twice as much development as domestic. This may seem better, but it isn't in the long run. Let's say instead, they spend it domestically. The countrys economy grows much stronger, and the next time spending time comes around, they have 2,000$, whereas in the first case, the next year the US would still only have 1,000$ or even less. Now the US can spend 1,000 on both. The next year, the US could psend 2,000 on both. By the third year, the US would have already spent more on foreign aid in dollars than it would have it had focused instead on foreign aid.


(C)"The United States is already developed enough to properly give whatever aid it choses to give."

Cross reference this with my entire point I argument. The US is in major need of development.


(D)"False, the Pro stated itself “the resolution therefore is a defense of status quo”. If one side choses the Status Quo as it’s plan, it is the burden of the opposition to provide a counter-plan. The Con counter-plan to the Pro’s Status Quo is to make a point of showing how more net benefit could be achieved by increasing foreign aid. In doing so, it is my responsibility to show where the funding of such money would come from. A plan is the only logical choice of action in a “Ought to” or “Should” debate."

I'm sorry friend but this isn't national forensics league. Status Quo does not mean this is a policy debate, nor does it mean that I had chosen a plan. If this was a policy debate, I would have indicated that in R1 when I stated the rules of this debate. Status Quo is latin for the existing state of affairs.


(E)"Just in case this need clarifying, my point is to demonstrate how the Con plan generates a superior amount of money available for aid spending, and that such money can bring about a huge gain in net benefit, both domestically and foreign, whereas the Pro only provides small benefit in a purely domestic setting. The Con plan assumes that the majority will be spent on foreign aid."

Cons plan provides more money to foreign aid only in the long run. Furthermore, NO PART of the US constitution states that we have a duty to provide aid to other countries. The US has been verymuch so an isolationist country for many parts of its history.





Conclusion
1. Pro shows that domestic aid has much greater long-term effects than foreign aid.
2. Con fails to sufficiently rebut any part of Pros case.
3. Con attempts to redefine a regular DDO debate into a NFL policy debate, even though the rules set out in R1 that were accepted by the con never stated that a plan was called for.
4. Con fails to properly format his citations so that readers can see which sources back up which statements and which statements are the opinion of Con.

My opponent dropped my arguments, and has attempted to twist this debate in his favor, therefore you must vote PRO!
Seeginomikata

Con

"No new arguments/rebuttals may be made in the final round."

Almost the entirety of Pro's final round is comprised of rebutals.
The only non-rebutal statements Pro made were in the Definitions at the very start and Conclusions at the very end.

Defnitions

My definitions come from the standard English dictionary as well. It is up to the judges to decide which definition makes more sense and which definition is abusive.

The Pro's statement about the role of government is a completely new argument.


Pro violated the terms and conditions of the debate by posting rebutals in his final round and by attempting to instert a completely new arguemtn in the final round. I urge readers and judges to ignore the Pro's points I urge judges to reflect on this when you vote.

Conlsuive Statemtns

The Con has shown a viable method of organizing massive funds for foriegn aid, and has shown that money put to use in less developed countries provides more net benefit that money in highly-developed countries, such as the U.S.

I would provide extensive arguments to refute the Pro's undignified claims, but such an act would violate the honor of an honest debate as it would be a rebutal in the final round. I refuse to commit such a betrayal as the Pro has done.

For my arguments, as my fairplay

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
I would like to continue.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Do you want to continue or do you concede the debate?

If you concede, I will ask voters to vote pro due to forfeit.
If you want to continue, I can skip my turn as well for the sake of fairness.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
This is embarrassing. I sincerely apologize for my forfeit. It was due solely to my own negligence.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Aid should not be defined as total spending for all domestic recourses. This is a standard government responsibility. Aid should be defined as charity.

"definition: financial or material help given to a country or area in need."

"synonyms:relief, charity, financial assistance, donations, handouts"

Thus government progrmams of subsidy, welfare, education and infrastructure should not count as aid. Those are not "free gifts" those are the basic responsibilities of government that voters have demanded.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
@1percenter I am arguing that cuts should be taken from foreign aid and added to domestic aid. Also, welfare spending was actually $927 billion in 2013. $73 billion is a fairly large amount to exaggerate by.
Posted by 1Percenter 3 years ago
1Percenter
Domestic aid already is given more focus and funding. The U.S. spent around $37 billion in foreign aid last year. Welfare spending *alone* is over $1 trillion annually, nevermind infrastructure and education spending, which is orders of magnitude larger than foreign aid spending.

Since you say the BOP is shared, CON would need to argue that we should somehow spend more money on foreign aid than we do on domestic aid, while you argue in favor of the status quo. No one in their right mind would accept that. You really should eliminate the foreign/domestic aid dichotomy from the resolution.

A much more defensible position would be for CON to argue in favor of increasing foreign aid spending/protecting it from budget cuts, while PRO would argue in favor of decreasing foreign aid spending.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
@1percenter
I mean that Domestic Aid should be prioritized, but you are right in saying this doesn't mean that foreign aid should be removed entirely. It Just means that in general domestic aid will be given more focus and funding than foreign aid, and by domestic aid I mean the expenditure of money/effort to improve domestic resources (infrastructure, education, transportation, welfare).
Posted by 1Percenter 3 years ago
1Percenter
What do you mean by "domestic aid"? Welfare programs? Disaster relief?
By "focus" I assume you mean to prioritize spending? Providing domestic aid doesn't preclude providing foreign aid as well, so these terms need to be defined.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
tylergraham95SeeginomikataTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition was abusive in that domestic spending =/= domestic aid. Some, but not all of Pro's R5 rebuttals were inadmissible. However, most of what he said was not new--it was not rebuttals that the rules prohibited, but NEW rebuttals. Finally, Pro's ff was bad form. For these three reasons, Con is awarded conduct. Sources go to Pro; Con relied far too much on Wikipedia. Con cited "straightdope.com" and had a confusing citation method--while providing links, it was hard to find which links went with which assertions. Finally, args go Pro in that I am convinced that the U.S.'s primary duty is to itself. Con's analysis of the constitution actually strengthened Pro's hand. Pro provided weightier analysis of the benefits to the U.S. than did Con. Lastly, Con needed a more in-depth closing round. The brevity of his final statement did hurt him. Thus, I vote Pro. Good debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
tylergraham95SeeginomikataTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I would say Pro won this one. Con simply attempted to redefine a DDO debate into a NFL policy debate. The rules showed that this was not the case. Also, I think that Pro's charts show that the US would gain more if it focused on domestic aid.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
tylergraham95SeeginomikataTied
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: Having read through the entire debate, it's really left up to two key issues. The first is whether or not I feel that Con's counterplan is reasonable within the context of the round. I can say that, if this were a policy round, Con would be perfectly within the right to argue as he does. But this is not that kind of round. It's domestic aid vs. foreign aid. As such, any benefit to foreign aid must come at the cost of domestic, not at the cost of national security. The second is whether Pro has defined the round adequately. This is really paramount, since Pro has to win this to win the round. And honestly, I don't think he is. His definition of "aid" is just too broad - he's practically stating that all domestic policy is aid. I'm sorry, but that's simply too much. I think you can look at a lot of the pieces you gave as aid, but hardly all of them. And when the round is defined so abusively, Con gets it by default. He also gets conduct, especially after that rebuttal in the last round.