The Instigator
thebomist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Texas14
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The amount of foreign aid given by developed countries should be increased.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 76540
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

thebomist

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion

GL, HF!
Texas14

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
thebomist

Pro

Thank you to Texas14 for accepting this debate. It"s my first time, so please don"t crush me :P

That being said, let"s head onto the definitions.

We define foreign aid as wealth that is given from one country to another, and we define developed countries to be countries with a sustainable economy and high human development. Now that we"re finished the definitions, let"s go ahead into the arguments.

During the course of this debate, I will be presenting three main arguments for Side Proposition. Firstly, that developed countries have a moral obligation to help the developing countries. Secondly, providing aid to poor countries will allow a link/agreement between the two, in which both nations will benefit. Finally, I will propose a model that will ensure that the problems of corruption and the embezzlement of aid money are eradicated and that aid money goes to the right hands at the right times.We will now delve into the first two arguments for Side Proposition, and during the 3rd round, we"ll discuss my proposition, and finally, we"ll finish with my closing statement.

Do we have a moral obligation to help the poor? The answer is a resounding yes. Without my argument needing to cater to emotion, I ask you to understand that it is a simple truth that as humans, we want to help each other. It"s in human nature " we see the homeless and we take pity on them. Side opposition may take this argument to say that we should be helping the homeless of developed nations instead, but note that developed countries have a safety net. Developing countries do not.

It is also important to note that many of the poor in developing nations do not have the basic human rights that many in developed nations take for granted. We"ll define human rights as those defined in the link below:

http://www.un.org...

Article 22 in the link states:

"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."

Social security. That"s something that many in developing countries simply don"t have, given their poverty levels. Because I might not have enough characters left, I will ask the gentle reader to see Article 26 that declares that education is a right. Yet many in developing countries cannot afford it, and thus, they are deprived of this right as well.

I pose the question to Side Opposition: Given that men, women, and children in developing nations are being subjected to the deprivation of human rights and inequality, as well as many issues that are well-known, such as poverty, scarcity of food and resources, as well as the corruption and lack of order due to conflict, do we truly not have a moral obligation to help these people? Furthermore, if nations face unforeseeable calamities or natural disasters, do we not have a moral obligation to give aid to those whose fault it is not? I leave it to Side Opposition to clash with this argument.

My second argument is also quite simple. Providing aid to poor countries allows a link/agreement between the two in which both nations benefit. At first glance, the gentle reader may think that aid is sent to developing nations to the benefit of solely the developing nation, and that this argument is designed to exploit the developing nation. However, this is far from the truth.

For this argument, I will use some of the points in http://www.foreignpolicyi.org..., as it proves points in a way that is hard to articulate better.

Note that foreign aid is not only a way to send help to the impoverished in the worst conditions, but that it also promotes the security of developed nations by helping to fight the causes of terrorism, stabilizing weak states, and promoting regional security as well as global stability. An example is Colombia, where in 2001, it was about to "collapse in the face of a powerful narco-insurgency. With nearly $8.6 billion (see link above), from the United States economic and military aid, the threat has diminished and democracy thrives. Of course, this helped Colombia " but it also helped the United States. U.S. trade has tripled since 2000 to $12 billion in 2011, and will grow further now that the United States-Columbia free-trade agreement has been enacted. As a result, we also see that aid promotes prosperity and self-reliance by encouraging economic development and that it opens international markets. Can Side Opposition truly say that aid has not helped and will continue to help as we give more?

Colombia is merely one example. South Korea is also an example of international aid that has been extremely successful, transforming the former receiving nation into a donor itself.

In summation for this argument, giving aid to developing nations will allow for the opening of international markets and will help the developed nations receive more resources, which allows the developed nations to boost the economy further and give even more aid in a reinforcing cycle, while the developed nation will boost their living standards with aid.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing Side Opposition"s response and clash.
Texas14

Con

I will start off by saying that I will not directly attack my opponent's arguments in this round and start with my opening arguments.

I concur with my opponent's definitions.

Foreign aid is not as broad of a topic as I am used to debating, so I will have only two main contentions. They are that foreign aid is bad for the interests of both developed and developing countries.

Contention 1: Foreign Aid is harmful to the interests of developed countries.

For the sake of simplicity, I will often use the United States as an example of a developed country. As a developed nation we do have a very big role in the world and we ought to accept that, but we must not forget to protect our vital interests. Foreign aid packages are huge. In 2012, the United States' total foreign aid expenditures were $48.4 billion. The amount is a little higher today and it makes up close to a tenth of the military budget. The U.S is broke. We have to borrow this money from China to send it to countries like Egypt and Pakistan. It's not authorized in the Constitution that the federal government can take money from the people and send it to various countries around the world. Foreign aid essentially takes money from mostly poor and middle class people in the United States and gives it to dictators in developing countries. In a 2012 presidential debate, Congressman Ron Paul said that foreign aid is received by dictators in developing nations and buys tanks and other weapons that are used against U.S interests. It becomes weapons of war. That's what happens when we give aid in the form of money. When we give aid in the form of weapons like we did to the Mujaheddin in the 1990's, the group ended up becoming the Taliban and began causing violence all throughout Afghanistan including against American soldiers. Clearly, foreign aid is a minor but significant burden to our economy and it often goes to help our enemies.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.cato.org...

Contention 2: Foreign aid is harmful to the interests of developing countries.

There are many ways that this particular argument works. The three countries that received the most U.S foreign aid in 2012 were Afghanistan, Israel, and Iraq. Most people agree that Israel and the United States are allies. I understand that Israel is a small country in a large and very dangerous region, so they have many people in need. I believe as long as we stand by their side so to speak, and threaten any country that poses a threat to Israel, Israel can become self reliant. The foreign aid that they receive from us largely becomes weapons of war, but it also makes Israel dependent on us. But the Israeli's might be happy to have us supporting them right? Wrong. According to an article published by the Jerusalem Post, a poll went out to Israelis and they were asked whether or not they want to become less dependent on U.S aid. 49% said yes, 45% said no and the remaining 6% had no opinion. Clearly, there is a very large portion of Israel that believes it can stand on its own. As a developed nation, it is our responsibility to stand with our allies, but also to let them take care of themselves.

http://www.jpost.com...
http://www.povertyeducation.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
thebomist

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to remind my opponent of the definition of foreign aid: WEALTH given from one country to another. Wealth does not imply or mean weapons at all. That being said, I will now move onto my rebuttals.

Firstly, the United States is only one example, which certainly doesn't constitute or encompass all developed countries. You've taken one country that's responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, who's doing arguably the worst out of the developed countries, and then placed it on a pedestal to act as a general example of what all developed countries are going through -- a blatant combination of the fallacies Hasty Generalization as well as Straw Man. Not only that, but he's stated that:

Foreign Aid packages are huge

followed by

Foreign Aid is a minor...burden

I also believe that my opponent is confused as to the definition of foreign aid:

That's what happens when we give aid in the form of weapons like we did to the Mujaheddin in the 1990's...

The whole argument afterwards is irrelevant, as this type of aid does not match the aid that is outlined in the definition. Thus, the only contention my opponent has made is that Foreign Aid is harmful to the interests of developed countries because the United States (possibly the worst developed nation in terms of economics at this point in time) is near broke and borrows money from China in order to help the budget, coupled with the argument that foreign aid takes money from the poor and middle class and it is sent to dictators. Yet what is not said by Side Opposition in this debate is that developed nations have social security nets that make sure the poor and middle class of this country aren't deprived of their basic rights. Meanwhile, many in developing nations still do not have access to basic human rights, as I've stated in my first argument. The issue of dictators and corrupt governments can easily be bypassed by Side Proposition's simple plan.

Firstly, we have to ask and take surveys of the people, not the government. Many governments, as the opposition has stated, are not just and will ask for foreign aid, so surveys of the people may be more accurate. However, to ensure that wealth is allocated correctly, we must send people in and personally be responsible for the transfer of aid and wealth. If a large portion of the developing nation believes it can stand on it's own, then we do not have to give foreign aid to them for now and allocate the wealth back into our own country.

Secondly, we can give a fraction of the foreign aid for a short amount of time and ensure that it's done correctly. Corrupt governments cannot do so well without foreign aid, and we can threaten to stop giving foreign aid unless we are allowed to be there to ensure the allocation of resources.

Finally, we can give the idea to the people of these developing nations, especially women. We can educate them in balanced and developed countries because these people are in poverty and are obviously interested in seeing growth in families, which will in the longer term mean growth in countries. Then, these people will return to their own country to oversee where the foreign aid goes to.

My opponent's first contention is further refuted with the fact that if foreign aid is not given, it is likely that countries will remain in poverty for a long time, even if they do better. Poverty will most likely lead to civil unrest, which means that extremist groups can hire troops more easily, causing detriment to developed countries, and this civil unrest and poverty was what allowed Hitler in Germany to come to power [1] and begin the genocide of the Jews. My opponent claims that foreign aid is detrimental to developed countries, but how is it detrimental if by giving foreign aid, we are actually helping both ourselves from terrorist and extremist threats as well as aiding other countries in the same manner as well as boosting their living standards?


My opponent's second contention against uses the hasty generalization of the United States as well as how Israel does not wish for foreign aid, which is easily refuted by the plan of Side Proposition. Furthermore, as Stephen Louis has stated in the 2009 Munk Debates [2]:


Millions of people living with HIV AIDS alive today, who without aid for anti-retroviral drugs would be dead; millions of children immunized against fatal diseases; over 30 million additional African children in schools since the year 2000; modest reduction in extreme poverty, from 58 percent to 51 percent between 1999 and 2007; 12 million orphans with the prospect of food; malaria death rates cut in half in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia over the course of just two years because of insecticide-treated bed-nets. I could go on ad infinitum. This is aid, aid that gets to the grassroots, aid that transforms open communities.

In the face of this evidence, side Opposition's arguments of how aid does not get to the people and only goes to corrupt dictators as well as how foreign aid is harmful to developing countries is easily refuted. As a result, side Proposition has nulled both contentions of the worthy opponent.

I look forward to my opponent's objections.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_rise_to_power
[2] http://www.munkdebates.com..., pages 3 to 4
Texas14

Con

First I am going to defend my own case and then I will go on to attack my opponent's.

I'd like to remind my opponent that all of this money that developed countries spend on foreign aid can be spent in a number of ways including money, food, and weapons. The truth is developed countries DO aid developing countries in the form of weapons because somehow that will help the people against whatever force they are fighting against. I said earlier that I concur with my opponent's definitions, and I do because he defined foreign aid as wealth given from one country to another. However, he didn't specifically define wealth. Wealth can be given in a number of ways. So my definition is basically the same as my opponent's but don't try to say that aiding developing countries with weapons that developed countries pay for is not a form of foreign aid.

My opponent also stated that I only used the United States as an example of a developed country. He said, " You've taken one country that's responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, who's doing arguably the worst out of the developed countries, and then placed it on a pedestal to act as a general example of what all developed countries are going through" Where is the evidence of this? How did the U.S cause a global financial crisis? As far as I can see, the United States has given the world capitalism and the U.S dollar, which more and more countries are beginning to accept. And I used the United States as an example because it is the best example. As a single country, the U.S has given more foreign aid than any other nation. So to say that I have generalized developed countries' use of foreign aid, I am just giving the voters the facts about what happens when foreign aid is given in these numbers. I can give you another country as well. The UK gives almost 20 billion a year in foreign aid and to what end? They arm Saudi Arabia to fight in the war against the Houthi Rebels in Yemen. This is not a generalization anymore. It's a pattern.

http://rt.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent began attacking my second contention by saying, "The whole argument afterwards is irrelevant, as this type of aid does not match the aid that is outlined in the definition. " The type of aid I mentioned is weapons, which are paid for and are therefore a form of wealth, so yes it does fit the definition. He also states, "Thus, the only contention my opponent has made is that Foreign Aid is harmful to the interests of developed countries because the United States (possibly the worst developed nation in terms of economics at this point in time) is near broke and borrows money from China in order to help the budget, coupled with the argument that foreign aid takes money from the poor and middle class and it is sent to dictators." If my U.S example does not satisfy my opponent, I can again refer to the U.K example in which billions of dollars in money and weapons are being transferred from the U.K to Saudi Arabia. The foreign aid turns into weapons of war and much less goes to help people who are actually starving in Saudi Arabia. My opponent also says that developed nations have more means than developing nations. This is definitely true, and this problem ought to be solved, but foreign aid isn't the answer. Again, the money goes to dictators and mostly becomes weapons of war rather than things that assist people in poverty.

http://rt.com...

My opponent argument seems to be irrelevant. He says, "However, to ensure that wealth is allocated correctly, we must send people in and personally be responsible for the transfer of aid and wealth. If a large portion of the developing nation believes it can stand on it's own, then we do not have to give foreign aid to them for now and allocate the wealth back into our own country." Well many countries already give aid to Israel which is likely to stand on its own as long as it has allies. And the resolution is about whether or not foreign aid should increased, not whether or not the system should be reformed.

Now I will attack my opponent's arguments.

Opponent's Contention 1: We have a moral obligation to help the poor.

This is true. We do have a moral obligation to help the poor. I believe we should take care of the poor in our own country before we worry about those in other nations. Cities like Detroit and Chicago are crumbling and are exploding with crime. Nevertheless, we should also help those in other countries who are in need. But it is a fallacy to think that we can help them the same way we can help our own. For example, if the U.S federal government were to give a billion dollars to the city government of Detroit, which is crumbling, I trust that that money will be utilized correctly because the mayor of that city lives there and wants to fix the problems. If the federal government gives the same amount of money to a developing country, the money usually goes to a dictator who has other interests and is less likely to help the poor. I agree that we have an obligation to help the poor, but we need to seriously think about how to do that before we turn foreign aid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Opponent's Contention 2: Providing aid to poor countries allows a link/agreement between the two in which both nations benefit.

This is only true in rare cases. For example, any developed country that gives money to Israel tends to have good relations with them. Many countries have collectively given hundreds of billions of dollars t Israel at the end of world war two. Most of these countries have good relations with Israel, but when you look at most other examples, there really isn't any correlation. According to the Washington Post, since the 1970's the U.S has tried to promote democracy in Egypt. The U.S spent billions in Egypt installing a democracy that eventually installed a more hostile regime from the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S/Egypt relations were definitely not good after that. There have been examples like this throughout the middle east and it is clear that foreign aid does more harm than good in relations between countries.

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
thebomist

Pro

If you will still support your argument that wealth is equivalent to weapons and such, then so be it: I will argue within those definitions, then. But I will take note that you still haven't stated any objections to the entailed plan given in Round 3. Side Proposition's plan is a way to increase foreign aid and give it more effectively. The burden of proof is thus on Side Opposition to point out flaws in this plan and prove that it won't work -- and unfortunately, I've seen nothing of the sort yet. This isn't restructurement, this is mere enforcement of the money we give, and that isn't hard at all. I see no reason as to why side Proposition cannot state a plan to implement their case further and ensure that it works. Therefore, Texas14, I believe the BoP is on you to clash with this plan.

“To ignore the plight of undernourished people is as morally reprehensible as failing to save a child drowning in a pool because of the inconvenience of getting one’s clothes wet.”


Ladies and gentlemen, this is the key theme we are dealing with today, only on a larger scale. The amount of foreign aid given by developed countries should be increased. To solve this problem, side proposition has proposed a type of aid given similarly to bilateral aid, except more enforced. It is our moral obligation to help provide for those who we have hurt in the past and we believe that it will have an overall positive outcome.

This closing statement will outline the main questions of this debate, how the opposition team has failed to prove why they have won this debate, and why side proposition has won the debate.

The first main question is whether it is our moral obligation to protect and help sustain countries in need, and the answer is yes, as the opponent has conceded. His only objection has been that those in developed nations should be considered first, but note that we've deprived people of human rights through history. Not only that, our plan will ensure that such aid gets there more effectively, nearly eliminating corruption.

The next question is: does this really help the poor nations in need? Yes, it does. Contrary to what Texas14 states about corruption, again I point at the plan and ask: how does such a system not work? And again, I point to the argument given in Round 1:

Millions of people living with HIV AIDS alive today, who without aid for anti-retroviral drugs would be dead; millions of children immunized against fatal diseases; over 30 million additional African children in schools since the year 2000; modest reduction in extreme poverty, from 58 percent to 51 percent between 1999 and 2007; 12 million orphans with the prospect of food; malaria death rates cut in half in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia over the course of just two years because of insecticide-treated bed-nets. I could go on ad infinitum. This is aid, aid that gets to the grassroots, aid that transforms open communities.

It is clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.

In addition to helping the poor nations another main question is: does this help developed nations? Yes, it does. I've already stated why, and if you'd like more proof, look to the Marshall Plan, a form of aid implemented by the United States that helped many broken countries in Europe in post World War II. This was foreign aid that helped countries come back, and now look at the properous nations today, who have opened international markets, specialize in products imported across the world, etc. This wasn't a plan that only helped countries in Europe, this was a plan that helped the world grow. With this example, can it truly be said that foreign aid is such a terrible thing as Texas14 states that it is, and not a blessing instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The fourth and final question to this debate is: should the possibility of negative effects deter the rich countries from attempting to help financially troubled nations? No, it shouldn't. And Side Proposition's proposal ensures that such effects will be lessened.

The opposition team has failed to complete their burden of proving why foreign aid given in this manner will lead to negative results. The arguments that Texas14 attempted to prove to you were:

1. Foreign aid hurts developed nations because developed countries are broke and the money goes to dictators as well as organizations that use the money for more sinister purposes.

This point is quite flawed. Developed countries aren't necessarily broke because of foreign aid. Look at Australia, the 12th largest national economy [1], giving up $6.8 billion over the span of the years 2006 - 2013 [2] to the Pacific Islands region, and they're not broke. China spent $6.4 billion in 2013 [2], and they're not broke.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.lowyinstitute.org...

Corruption doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't give foreign aid. Take an organization headed by a corrupt president, say, FIFA. Does corruption at the top constitute that the entire organization is corrupt? No.

Texas14 has also stated that we're just making sinister organizations stronger, but again, Side Proposition's plan. I'm not restructuring at all, I'm simply enforcing bilateral aid given over time. Not only that, but given that your definition of foreign aid encompasses wealth in all ways, then that could constitute sending in mercenaries and the armies to deal with these organizations.

2. It hurts developing nations because Israel is a nation that can stand on it's own, it only needs allies, and the Israeli people think that they're dependent on the United States. There's a significant number of people who want to stop foreign aid here.

The logic here doesn't necessarily make sense to me. I'm sorry, exactly how does foreign aid actually hurt Israel? You've stated that they're somehow dependent, and some of the population may believe so. But according to [3], Israel's getting about 3.15 billion annually. But now, look at the graphs of [4]: 291.36 USD Billion in 2013 is their GDP. So how much is U.S. aid really getting them? Roughly 1%. Even if this aid goes to the military, Israel could easily transfer a little more to the military sector and they'd be fine. 1% certainly doesn't constitute dependency. So Israel isn't dependent on the United States at all!

So yes, we can let countries stand on their own. But does that have anything to do with the resolution? Does that necessarily mean that we should increase the amount of foreign aid given to developing nations, even if it isn't Israel? No! Just because Israel and a few similar countries can survive without foreign aid does not mean that foreign aid shouldn't be given to the more unforunate -- so this argument doesn't necessarily have relevance to the resolution.

[3] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...;
[4] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;

In this debate, Side Proposition has given an argument of moral justification. We've given an argument of why and how it helps both developed and developing nations. We've shown that without foreign aid, huge consequences can exist. And finally, we've shown a plan as to how we can make foreign aid work and cast aside the doubts of the Opposition, refuting essentially all of their contentions: and that is why Side Proposition has won this debate.

I look forward to the closing statement of the Opposition.

P.S. Remember the BoP.
Texas14

Con

This is an important debate. To the voters, when deciding who won this debate, ask yourselves two questions. They are as follows: Is foreign aid beneficial to the interests of developing countries? Is foreign aid beneficial to the interests of developed countries? The answer to both questions is no and here's why.

Firstly, foreign aid is NOT beneficial to the interests of developing countries. In my opening argument I gave a great example of a country where foreign aid has not been beneficial and that country is an ally of most developed countries, Israel. Israel certainly faces challenges because they're a fairly new country and they are in a dangerous geographic region. Israel has surprised the rest of the world by existing after trials through poverty, antisemitism, and aggression from other countries in the region such as Iran. However, Israel still wants to become self reliant. This is not to say that Israel can be as independent as the United States militarily. Israel's allies must still stand by its side so to speak. A plurality of Israeli's surveyed said they want to become less dependent on foreign aid. If the Israelis believe that they can stand on their own, then who are we, the developed world, to stand in the way? Secondly, foreign aid not in Israel, but around Israel has hurt them. With massive amounts of foreign aid from developed countries to countries like Egypt and Iraq, dictators turn a lot of that money into weapons of war. Thanks to developed countries supporting democracy in Egypt, there is now a more hostile regime that is more anti-Israel. That foreign aid softens Israel for their security. They should have their sovereignty back and they shouldn't have to have other countries send them aid, which is largely sent because other countries that receive the same aid pose a threat to them. So no, foreign aid is definitely not beneficial to the interests of developing countries.

http://www.jpost.com...

Secondly, foreign aid is not beneficial to the interests of developed nations. Throughout this debate I have cited the U.S and the U.K as examples of developed countries, mainly because they give more foreign aid than any other countries. There is the obvious fiscal issue that my opponent really has not addressed. Again, in 2012, the U.S spent 48.4 billion dollars in foreign aid and the U.K spent roughly two thirds of that. You may not think that's a lot of money for a rich country, but the U.S is broke. We have to borrow this money mainly from China. Also, there is the issue that the foreign aid we send not only doesn't help the interests of the people of those countries, but it doesn't help our own interests. As a nation it is our responsibility to take care of ourselves first. We send money to Egypt and Iraq, but ignore the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling here at home. The money we send one way or another becomes weapons of war that are used all around the developing world, and usually it is against our interests. The U.S aided and armed radical groups all over the middle east. My opponent can argue that this is not foreign aid, but it is a form of wealth because we have to pay for the weapons ourselves. And since we're talking about who this is good for, why don't we ask the people what they think. A poll from multiple sources says 6 out of 10 Americans agree that aid to Israel (an ally) should be decreased. And abroad it's the same. A Gallup poll shows 82% of Egyptians oppose U.S aid. Clearly, foreign aid is not in the best interests of developed countries.

http://www.gallup.com...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

Now I will attack my opponent's most recent arguments.

My opponent argues that we have a moral obligation to help those in need. While this is true, it does not mean we have to harm our interests and the interests of the poor in the process, which is what foreign does currently.

My opponent then argues that the aid does help those in need. He gives an example and says that the benefits outweigh the costs. Except the benefits outweighing the costs is almost never the case in foreign aid. Why? Because the value of it increases when it gets to developing countries. Let me give an example. The United States sends billions of dollars to Egypt every year, and that is valuable here, but it is much more valuable in Egypt. And therefore when it is corrupted and used as weapons of war, it ends up doing a lot more damage than the good it could've done in America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

My opponent also argues the following, "The fourth and final question to this debate is: should the possibility of negative effects deter the rich countries from attempting to help financially troubled nations?" Yes, especially if those negative effects are happening and are not hypothetical. My opponent makes it seem like the negatives here are a possibility, but they're not. Foreign aid really is used as weapons of war all around the world. I have provided sources proving this statement.

My opponent also attack's my argument about Israel. He says that Israel is not dependent on U.S aid. He just proved my point. Israel is not dependent on the aid, and I'm not saying the opposite. I was implying that continuing this aid will teach them to be dependent on us. If this aid does so little for the people of Israel and (like I pointed out earlier in my closing argument) does so much harm around them, why continue?

"Just because Israel and a few similar countries can survive without foreign aid does not mean that foreign aid shouldn't be given to the more unfortunate -- so this argument doesn't necessarily have relevance to the resolution. " I don't think my opponent understands what foreign aid does a lot of the time. My opponent depicts foreign aid as some form of welfare, healthcare, or social security program, when in reality it is weapons, money, and bread in the best case scenario. Many countries can stand on their own as long as they have a strong ally to frighten their enemies. Foreign aid is not beneficial to these countries.

For many reasons, con has won this debate. I urge the voters to think about what needed to be proven, who proved it and why that's important. I want to thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate on a really important topic. I wish my opponent good luck in his future debates.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: evanjfarrar// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a very good job. Although Con was very strong, I think Pro delivered the strongest arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for the arguments point. Simply repeats the point category.
===========================================================================
No votes have been placed for this debate.