The Instigator
BrettBoelkens
Pro (for)
The Contender
tychicus12
Con (against)

Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide developmental assistance to other nations

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
BrettBoelkens has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 309 times Debate No: 105650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

BrettBoelkens

Pro

*Please forgive my english. This is badly formatted since this was copied from my LD case, and I wanted to see how it is. Other responses won't be so.

According to the World Health Organization, 5 and a half million children die every year, strictly under the age of 5. That"s about 15,000 a day, 600 an hour, and 10 or so a minute. That means that before I reach the end of this sentence, some child very likely will die in agony This preventable suffering is morally unacceptable. By extension, I affirm the resolution. Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide developmental assistance to other nations.

For the purposes of this debate, wealthy nations will be defined as first world nations. Developmental assistance will be defined as assistance given by foreign nations administered with the promotion of the economic development. Other nations will be defined as third world nations.
The negation can"t merely cite examples of aid gone wrong to prove that aid overall is bad. They must prove that, generally speaking, developmental assistance doesn"t benefit.

Contention 1: Humans have an obligation to reduce suffering
Sub point A: It is our moral duty
Singer, 72
if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. [for the sake of argument,] if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean [I"d have to get a new suit] but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. [It is well within the capacity of peoples of rich nations to prevent these avoidable deaths and to reduce this misery. To ignore the plight of 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.]

Contention 2: Developmental assistance helps reduce suffering and increase human welfare
Sub point A: Marshall Plan
McFarland, 17

[Imagine post WWII Europe, ravaged by the deadliest war in history economy in ruins. The Marshall plan fixed that, and helped make western Europe what it is today.]
the Marshall Plan provided unequaled sums of money to an impoverished Western Europe, stopping a humanitarian disaster and helping spur long-term economic recovery. [Because of the plan] The standard of living in participating countries grew almost 150 percent over the next three decades, [and] set the Europeans on a road to the formation of NATO.

Sub point B: It causes an increase in life expectancy and a decrease in child mortality
Stanford University of Medicine, 14
Foreign aid for health care is directly linked to an increase in life expectancy and a decrease in child mortality in developing countries, [Stanford] researchers examined health-aid programs [for 30 years in] 140 countries and found that, health-aid grants led to improvements [regarding life expectancy and child mortality] with lasting effects [for years following]

Sub point C: Developmental Aid is proven to work
Randlet, Brookings Institute senior fellow, 16
(http://solutions.heritage.org......)

[According to the Brookings Institute, a multitude of independent studies have shown the positive impacts of aid on development. Aid programs focused on health have saved millions of lives. the Institute of Medicine concluded that [health care AID] has saved and improved the lives of millions. in recent years the preponderance of research has shown a positive impact of aid on growth all published in respected academic journals, In 2015, USAID" improved the nutrition of more than 18 million children. in Afghanistan, less than 1 million children attended schools in 2002, and almost none were girls. Today there are 9 million children in school, including more than 3.5 million girls [because of aid]. ince the end of the Cold War, aid has helped support democratic transitions both by reinforcing broad development progress and by supporting civil society organizations,

As human beings, we have a moral obligation to help our fellow creature, and help alleviate suffering. To do otherwise is as reprehensible as letting a child drown because of the inconvenience of getting one"s clothes wet.
Past developmental assistance has clearly worked, in the case of the European Theatre and South Korea.
As of now, aid has been proven to work in the long term from multiple academic publications and studies, such as those from Stanford, Brookings Institute and the Institute of Medicine. Developmental aid helps reduce child mortality, disease, and poverty and increases life expectancy, economic growth, living standards, and education.
To quote Nobel Peace prize winner and Saint Mother Teresa "it is a kingly act to assist the fallen," and I think we have good reason to agree with her. For these reasons I urge an affirmative vote.
tychicus12

Con

I'll assume you are looking to polish your arguments for political purposes, or to apply for grants, etc. To that end I'll furnish counter-arguments that are valid and which you are likely to meet as resistance; after the debate you can polish your approach.

The idea of developmental assistance to less blessed nations is appealing if one even has a small fear of God. But in practice, mere developmental assistance unaccompanied by military domination for a time simply does not work long term. The notion of "saving those who are in need right now rather than trying to fix broader issues that will stop violence long term and end the need for violence" is upright and moral. But you said developmental assistance which implies long term. The very assistance provided becomes just another item in a poor economy to be fought over and perpetuates a conflict that would otherwise have been over long ago. It piles up bodies while saving a few for the camera. Think images in America for decades of starving African children eating gruel out of bowl, massive amounts of money and assistance sent and water wells dug and yet still no peace in Africa. The very food and medicine sent becomes strategic supplies for warring factions both to use and to keep away from their opponents and to kill people over.

Africa is not Europe. Generic notions of "developmental aid" don't work everywhere. Europe was at least nominally Christian. Africa and the Middle East are not. Pagan religions are notorious for deception, violence and repression as staples of holding on to power. They'll take your stuff to use as a wedge against their enemies.

Item 1: The notion of developmental assistance as a stand-alone act of moral bravery and duty assumes free will on the part of human beings, which is not true and assumes easily transferred value and moral systems from one human being to another based on teaching someone "a better way" ..to use an idealized free will.

"Feed them now, teach them later" as well assumes fundamental humility on the part of those in need that they do not have. They are deceived someone other than themselves made a mistake that perhaps they can rectify by violence..and sometimes violence is indeed the only way. You can reach out with the food, medicine and the rest only to find the very instant they are well and full of food, their fundamental beliefs about reality force them to see you as an enemy of their pride. To them, you are saying that you personally get to say who lives and dies by supposedly choosing who to help and whom to share your resources with: religious, moral and physical. Staying in your good graces becomes "the point" of their lives..which no human being can bear for long. The giver is resented and hated by the receiver. As the Giving Nation, you pay for your own trouble and the hatred of others against you by trying to do the right thing.

Uniformitarianism, the notion that your type of help, no matter what it is works across all belief systems, geographies and governmental models is simply false and attempts to merely make a larger market for those who profession it is to be the face of the Givers. "Developmental aid" isn't going to work for those who actually think Kim el jun is a god. Professional Givers have no job without a sense of supposed guilt by those God has blessed over that very blessing. There are exact parallels between the lie of climate change/global warming and the constant harping of "won't you help?" give aid to poor countries: both assume free will and the freedom to act as one pleases as the basis of blame: climate change essentially claims human beings --because they posses free will-- are to blame for whatever magic numbers look bad on a chart and professional charity groups rely on the same to essentially blame the blessed for the evil of the wicked and the consequences on them.

It's one thing to tell someone "I'll cut a piece of my steak off my plate and put it on your plate". It's another for the recipient to understand they will never have a steak on their own with their own belief system and they will keep having to go back to get a piece of your steak if they don't "change their core values".

Simply repeatedly saying "one man one vote" or "capitalism" or "communism" or whatever as if those to whom you pass the directions on "how to live in peace and prosper" will just get you killed..right after they get the tech on how to pump oil out of the ground someone else made valuable and keeps valuable. Covering the world in 'renewable energy sources" assumes those with all that energy will be suddenly happy and satisfied and all you have done is to tell them "My job is to tell you what is valuable and how to get it in such a way as to enrich myself." The very "developmental assistance" given is directional and functional and goes to the benefit before God and Man of the giver as well. Who wants to give aid in order for the very persons helped to make war for more stuff and more tech: to show what blessing you have in front of those who do not have them and to help them with those blessings only to be attacked for it. Think throwing pearls before swine.

Let's say you go to Yemen. Are you going to force them into Christianity? That's actually physically impossible because no one can choose to be a Christian..God chooses that. So they stay in Islam and animism minus Christian colonialism, which means they stay under the thumb of Islamic Centers like Saudi Arabia or Iran who has the attitude, "you owe your understanding of the universe to us because we invented it and interpret it." That is why they are at war and "need assistance". Thinking that you can give them water wells and medicine and governmental models and different ideal models of behavior and suddenly they will have a viable geographic region of peace and prosperity usually called a nation is fantasy. But you said "developmental aid", not just "save the children now".

Minus absolute military domination and forcing Christian principles on them, ( colonialism ) "generic developmental aid" will not work. And that is not theory, that is at least 50 years of evidence in the modern era. Giving aid "as long as you don't tell us we are fundamentally wrong about how the universe works" has never worked and never will.


Mother Theresa? Saved the kids on the spot in front of her. Changed anything to keep the kids from being disposed of on the street? No. You can send food, medicine, surgical tents and the like and that is honorable and I think required by God to do.

James 4:17 To him therefore who knows how to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.

But economic or any other development without military domination and just simply saying, "I'm not asking you to change or talking you into anything. I'm telling you how it is." is worthless. There is a time when colonialism is the bigger mercy.


James 4:4 Adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? 
Whoever therefore is minded to be the friend of the world is constituted enemy of God.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen



Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.