The Instigator
Walking_Contradiction
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The World Owes It to Africa to Help Them.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 8147
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Walking_Contradiction

Pro

Most are aware of the consistent and ever growing problems facing Africa today. This is a direct result of exploitation, oppression, and terrorism from the West and European countries. I believe we owe it to their nations to repay them for years upon years of authoritarian rule.

Just so I am clear when I use "we" in this argument I mean the United States and European countries.

It is painfully clear that nothing is being done on this issue and there needs to be. People are being slaughtered on a daily basis with no one to protect them and no country willing to stop it. It needs to be stopped. "If this scale of destruction and fighting was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III with the entire world rushing to report, provide aid, mediate and otherwise try to diffuse the situation." (http://www.globalissues.org...)

This is something we can no longer ignore. How many more people will we allow to die for no reason? Many view the warring countries as "barbaric" and "we're better than them." What makes us better then them? We DID this to them. Since European colonialism Africa has been exploited and manipulated. After the decolonization we just abandoned them. Gave them few or no resources and basically said you're on your own. Because of that Africa has never recovered. As Germany paid reparations for WWI I propose all known colonizers of Africa pay reparations to the African countries they destroyed.

I wish good luck to my opponent.
Danielle

Con

Greetings.

I will begin my argument by distinguishing what my opponent affirms in the resolution by using the word "owes." An online dictionary defines this term as: to be under obligation to pay or repay, or to be indebted to [1]. In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that we - the United States + Europe - have an obligation to help Africa financially via monetary means (money). On the other hand, I will establish why we do not have a moral obligation to aid Africa.

Pro first explains that the economic turmoil in Africa is a "direct result" of European and American exploitation. However, Pro never details the reasoning behind this claim. She mentions authoritarian rule, but makes no mention of the authoritarian rule as established by the various African governments themselves. Therefore, I can easily attack this claim already, but I'll give Pro the chance to explain herself before dismantling this weak argument.

One reason this is a potentially weak argument is the fact that Africa has a great role in its own oppression. Another reason is the fact that Africa is obviously NOT the only place to have ever been exploited. The most powerful nations in the world have all at some point in time been under extreme oppression, including the United States. Of course one logical argument for the side of the Con is to point out that often times countries can - and maybe should - be responsible for bringing themselves out of bad situations. To claim this would be impossible feat would be ignorant; this type of turn-around has happened all throughout history.

An additional argument for the Con would be to pose the question as to why the citizens of today's government should be held responsible for the actions of our ancestors. If Pro wants "us" to pay, this "us" she speaks of obviously refers to the government. Tax payers fund the government, and many citizens in this economic crisis are all struggling to keep their own families afloat. Pro must detail why average tax payers should be FORCED to have their money aid people overseas, as the government doesn't say that we should help the people in Africa if we can, but rather that we OWE it to Africa (which is a pretty direct claim). Let me take this opportunity to point out that the U.S. itself is in TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. If we ourselves are in debt, how and why can we afford to significantly aid the African people? Shouldn't this be an issue of private charity?

Pro writes, "Since European colonialism Africa has been exploited and manipulated." This is true, but like I said, a lot of it was self-contained. This is not unusual. Consider a place like Columbia where one of its own - Pablo Escobar - exploited the people of his nation for his own personal gain. Similarly, many Africans in power choose to exploit their own people. In that case, the U.S. doesn't "owe" Africa anything. It's just a sad situation. Moreover, Pro points out that Africa never recovered after we "abandoned" it. The truth is that Africa has various resources which it can use to fuel the economy. The key is giving them the opportunity and know-how to do it, and while it may be important, it may not be because *we* OWE it to them. The key term in this resolution is "owe" after-all.

Again, many nations have been turned upside down and without the luxury of receiving any type of reparation such as the ones Germany paid post WWI. I am not arguing that the people in Africa should not be helped. However, I am negating the notion that we OWE it to Africa to help them. In other words, that it is a moral absolute. I will argue this ideology further once my opponent has posted a rebuttal. Good luck!

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Walking_Contradiction

Pro

Walking_Contradiction forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Extend my arguments, please.
Debate Round No. 2
Walking_Contradiction

Pro

Walking_Contradiction forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Well that was easy.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"Gave them few or no resources and basically said you're on your own."

That, or they decided to rise up, kill off all the white people and then take over. Or, they still are. See Zimbabwe.

Plus, they have lots of resources, they just didn't have the technology or know-how to get it out of the ground. So then we came back with our capitalism in mind and decided to help them with that. Then, they got lots of money, and started killing each other. But the key here is that *they* started killing each other.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Walking_ContradictionDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Walking_ContradictionDanielleTied
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