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

Should we Obligate big companies to donate to poor countries (for health and education)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
debatecreator has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 107806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Please vote and comment


t first the idea seems highly logical, after all big companies that mainly operate in the western world are obviously much richer than then many poor countries and it wouldnt take them a large amount of their resources to greatly help those countries in the long term, however this argument only works if you assume that donating would cause the country's economy to benefit in the long term and stay richer than they were, this is not always the case:

take north korea as an obvious example, we can see a clear difference that happened over time between it's economy and the economy of it's neighbor... and simply throwing more money at it wont stabilize their economy or make everything better... because what's broken is the system itself.

in conclusion i would say that in most cases throwing money at the problem like you suggest wont solve anything.
Debate Round No. 1


Big companies don't owe them anything. There is always a reason why poor countries are poor in the first place. They probably wasted money on something usless, instead of using it on education, hospitals...


you are oversimplifying the problem, countries become poor/rich for many many more reasons than that... for example the economic system that is used, the distribution of wealth, natural resources, etc... that was my entire point, just donating to the country isn't gonna solve the root of the problem and is only of temporary help if any.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by WOLF.J 2 years ago
at first I thought it read obliterate big companies!, but anyways I don't think companies, whether big or small, HAVE to donate, its not illegal not to, so why do it if the number one goal of a company is profitability. Sure you can have your CSRs and PR, but making it a legal requirement is financially unsustainable.
Posted by Surgeon 2 years ago
No. To oblige such an action is immoral in and of itself. Whatever the respective morality of the intentions, the proposal advocates taking wealth by threat of force from one sector / firm / economy / society / country and allocating it arbitrarily to a different sector / firm / economy / society / country. If this is done on a voluntaristic basis by the company"s shareholders then that is for their conscious and not for non shareholders to interfere with. But to compel it is legalized theft.
This debate has 0 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.