EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
8148

Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
8 points
Cross-Examination
admin: Note: as per the rules, only my opponent asks questions in this round
Nerd Politico: Can you clarify what your value and criterion are for this debate?
Nerd Politico: What grounds do you have to claim that things like food and shelter are rights?
Nerd Politico: If political conditions lead to a situation where the governments have more respect for the basic human rights of its people, would you still consider the political conditions unjust?
Nerd Politico: In regards to your third contention, how exactly do political conditions lead to more conflict and more humanitarian aid being needed?
Nerd Politico: I'll wait for your answers for these questions before continuing questioning.
admin: I'm deliberately not following the value/criterion framework, but ultimately the value in this debate is justice, and my criterion is humanitarian aid without political conditions.
admin: Things like food and shelter are rights because they are required to live, and we have a right to life. I mentioned that in my round.
admin: In my third point, I showed that even if governments do make positive political changes, these are doomed to be short lived and lead to ultimately worse long-run outcomes.
admin: This results from those governments feeling forced, blackmailed and bribed, making them hostile in the future. If good politics is good for the people, then the people will suffer the consequences...
admin: ... of this hostility.
admin: As an extreme example of that, they may reverse back to previous policy at the next opportunity and kill anyone deemed to be a foreign sympathizer.
Nerd Politico: Does the potential for future harm outweigh current and likely long-term positive benefits?
admin: I don't accept your premise. There are no likely long-term positive benefits.
Nerd Politico: Well, assume that the political conditions worked to get better conditions for the people from the government. In that case, would that not outweigh the potential for future harm?
admin: It might, depending on a benefit, but I also don't accept that just because there's a greater good it justifies a clear harm.
admin: For example, if you think flying an aircraft into the Empire State Building is going to damage an evil, corrupt nation and bring victory to your soldiers, that would not be justified.
admin: In short, ends do not justify means
Nerd Politico: What justification do you have for the existence of justice?
Nerd Politico: Would you say that humanitarian aid is, in itself, moral?
admin: Justice and humanitarian aid are both presupposed by the resolution
admin: For the record, I don't believe that all humanitarian aid is moral, but I would say one of the two reasons it is given is the principle of justice (human rights)
Nerd Politico: In the interest of fairness, I am done asking questions, and I await the next round.
admin: Thanks, looking forward to your case

Return To Top
Cross-Examination
admin: Thanks for your round.
admin: You claim that political conditions have only been attached to humanitarian aid in times of war. What war is Fiji currently engaged in?
admin: You also claim that Tanzania lost their clothing industry due to Canadian clothing aid. Are you sure that was aid and not trade?
admin: What's worse - dying of malnutrition because your dictator won't give in, or losing your job?
admin: You mention how war-torn countries trade humanitarian aid, like food or medicine, for weapons. Wouldn't arms embargos be more effective?
admin: Final initial question - your criterion is maximizing utility. How does inadequate medicine, starvation, no clean drinking water, no shelter etc maximize utility?
Nerd Politico: Fiji is not currently engaged in a war, so I admit, that can go against my definition, to an extent. However, this harkens back to my burden of proof observation- you have the burden of proof to show
Nerd Politico: that political conditionality is always unjust, but I only need to show that it can be just, so I am focusing on conflict humanitarian aid.
Nerd Politico: This was not due to just Canadian clothing aid- that was just an example to illustrate volume. However, this is also a problem that comes with free trade that is forced onto countries by the
Nerd Politico: donor nations, which I can elaborate further upon in my next round. That being said, massive amounts of donated clothing go to Tanzania and Africa in general.
Nerd Politico: I don't accept the premise of your third question. That question assumes that humanitarian aid works to alleviate suffering- however, I've already shown in my first contention that it makes people
Nerd Politico: into targets for violence, and in my second contention that it destroys economies. People losing their jobs in countries that are already so high in poverty is clearly bad because it means even more
Nerd Politico: poverty, which leads to even more malnutrition.
Nerd Politico: No, because they can still get the weapons from other countries or their own. That being said, arms embargos are irrelevant to today's debate. We're talking about political conditionality and
Nerd Politico: humanitarian aid, not potential policy ideas.
Nerd Politico: Final initial answer- once again, this assumes that the humanitarian aid works. Those in need become targets for violence and theft, and the length of the conflict is increased, putting more in need
Nerd Politico: as a result of donor nation actions. Increasing violence so even more can die as a result of a donor nation's actions is clearly not a maximization of utility.
admin: Why would a dictator accept political conditions if the dictator is not just?
admin: Why do you assume political conditions always improve human rights? Can political conditions not be negative?
admin: You said in your last CX that there were positive long-term benefits. Can you describe why any benefits that might arise from the model would be long term?
admin: Is your assumption in this debate that humanitarian aid does not work? If that is the case, would you not agree that it's immoral to entice people to something that isn't going to help their country?
admin: Can you give any evidence that any of the clothing crisis in Tanzania was not a direct consequence of the trade liberalisation program fostered in that country during the late 90s?
admin: Since I can show examples of countries that do not meet your definition, doesn't that meet my burden of proof to show that your definition is inadequate?
admin: And final question from this lot - are you trying to prove an exception or a rule?
admin: 12 hours later...
Nerd Politico: I apologize for the time difference, I am competing in an irl debate tournament, and I have school. I'll answer the remaining q's before going to bed.
Nerd Politico: So a dictator might accept political conditions, or he might not accept the political conditions. This still falls under my win/win scenario, where people are spared from the negative effects of
Nerd Politico: countries who receive aid tied to political conditions accept and implement those changes in the next 5 or so years
Nerd Politico: *within the next 5 or so years
Nerd Politico: My contention (which I have proved) is that humanitarian aid on its own does not work. However, political conditionality solves for many of the problems created by humanitarian aid, and is more just
Nerd Politico: than the alternative of humanitarian aid.
Nerd Politico: Yes- because donated clothing (which has nothing to do with trade liberalisation) floods the markets with free goods, which I've shown can destroy economies.
Nerd Politico: My definition of what? I'm assuming you mean humanitarian aid. Anyway, humanitarian aid can be used in response to natural disasters- however, my burden of proof is not to show that placing
Nerd Politico: political conditions on humanitarian aid is always just, only that it can be just. My definition of humanitarian aid is only intended to narrow the focus for sake of my proof that political
Nerd Politico: conditions on humanitarian aid to conflict zones is just. In proving that, I have negated the resolution.
Nerd Politico: I am under no obligation to prove a rule.
Nerd Politico: My part of the burden of proof does not demand it.
admin: If a dictator does not accept political conditions and many of the people die of starvation, how is that a win?
admin: For example, in the wake of the recent floods in North Korea, were they better off without aid, or did they just hate the west more?
admin: Can you please answer my questions about negative political conditions, such as only offering aid in return for committing genocide on some of your people?
admin: Can you please answer my question on how benefits from your model would be long term?
admin: How does political constitutionality solve for humanitarian aid's economic problems you affirm?
admin: If arms can be acquired through other sources as you admitted in the CX, then how does political conditionality solve for those?
admin: Can you show records for any charitable aid of clothing at all given by the government of Canada to the government of Tanzania for humanitarian causes?
admin: And finally, doesn't your case therefore concede that outside of a war in a country with full employment and a benevolent dictator?
admin: (sorry, should clarify - by "that" I mean "my case")
Nerd Politico: were stolen. In the Biafran War, some estimates show that the war continued on for 12 to 16 months longer than otherwise due to
Nerd Politico: the stolen food aid being used to buy weapons, so having that humanitarian aid was clearly not a win for either case. The length of the conflict being exacerbated or the country falling to anarchy.
Nerd Politico: If it the leader of the country says no to the conditions, the people are spared from those effects.
admin: NP stated things aren't posting for him anymore. This post exists to check.

Return To Top


Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!