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

Foreign aid should not be a thing.

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
TTheLionSleepsTonighTT has forfeited round #5.
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: 5/5/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 121692
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Foreign aid: A country giving resources, Mostly money, To another country to help support their population. However, Foreign aid does not always turn out right, And sometimes it is used more as a political slight of hand rather than the president of a country actually feeling sympathy to give another country money.

We will be taking two countries, One giving foreign aid and one receiving. An example is the US giving foreign aid to North Korea.

I invite my opponent forward to make his/her arguments first.


I will argue that foreign aid is a good thing, And will rebut in round 3 after substantiation from my opponent.

Foreign aid is often provided to countries in need. An example of an area which often recieves foreign aid is Africa. There, Despite the abundant natural and human resources, People experience poverty and hardships every day, Brought down by governments and leaers who are corrupt and whose inhabitants live in oppression and are always stereotyped as 'hungry' and 'poor'. Their leaders often make selfish and uninformed decisions, And many of their people rely solely on foreign aid to sustain themselves.
Though it may seem as a waste of money only staged as a political ploy to make countries appear to be on the moral high ground, Foreign aid has other uses that Pro has not mentioned.

Foreign aid is something that many people will suffer without. Charities and foreign aid has helped stave off Ebola, Feed hundreds of starving people across the world, And provided relief in the incident of disaster. Without foreign aid, These people will be worse off as their own country is often unable to satiate their needs.

It is in your interests to continue to feed people in other countries. The better off people are in poorer countries, Your own life will improve. This is because of the wasted potential that a non-prosperous nation bears upon its' people. A starving man in Africa could have gone to cure cancer if he was given the materials to do so, But because of how his chances of even being able to have an education is being oppressed by his own government, Such an innovation may not occur in the first place.
My point is, By not offering foreign aid, We might have just killed the next Einsterin, The next Newton- someone who would have changed the world for the better.

Finally, For the reason of basic human compassion, I argue for the necessity of foreign aid. We're human beings- what got us to where we are now is compassion. From the beginning of our evolution, Our ability to band together as a species is what helped keep us alive. The U. S. Government spends less than 1% of their budget on foreign aid. Arguably, The U. S. Government spends a larger sum of money on more useless things- the 1% on foreign aid isn't that much of a loss to us and is what in fact keeps people alive who are less fortunate than us. Even if some peoples' own governments won't feed them, It's no big loss for those able to help to be the better person and at least donate to these people or support foreign aid.

I'll look forwards to rebuttal and hopefully substantiation in Round Two.

Debate Round No. 1


The problem with foreign aid is that these deals and transactions are not made by us the people, But instead by our presidents. Their goal, Like it or not, Is not to give us the best environment. Instead, It their interest to keep in power, And occasionally give stuff to us if it doing it outweighs the consequences of not giving. On the other hand, Dictatorships (such as North Korea) have leaders that do not need to be voted again into power, And their sole interest is to get more money to keep his/her throne afloat. He need not care too much of the population, And will only provide things like food to a point that the population doesn't die of starvation, But are still starving. The truth is most of these foreign aid policies are made from democracies like America to dictatorships like North Korea. When these dictatorships receive lets say, Food, They now are in theory supposed to spend it on the citizens. However, The truth is the foreign aid is not provided on top of what they already get. Instead, It replaces it. The population still gets the same amount of food and water, And the leaders (Kim), Pockets the difference. Dictatorships give their population just enough food to go by, While receiving more aid next year because the population is still starving. And democracies like America keep giving aid to North Korea. Why? This is because, Again, Their biggest goal is to stay in office and get re-elected. We are simply wasting money on foreign aid, And taking away this option to give it in the first place should be abolished because of this.

And you also say like: "My point is, By not offering foreign aid, We might have just killed the next Einsterin, The next Newton- someone who would have changed the world for the better. "

But again, Maybe you have saved a 9-year-old Einstein. But how will he make the discoveries Einstein did, If he is still under a tyrannical rule? The only way is to escape or leave, And both are not included in foreign aid. The thing about foreign aid is that they do not bring these suffering people to another place to live. For example, Canada and America bring foreign aid to Africa. However, They do not bring these people to another place to live happier and better lives, So when they leave the medical camps and get sick again, They are back in square one, And we are simply wasting money on them.

And finally, Life is about winning and losing. There are always winners and losers. Fine, We could spend a bit on them, But not a lot and not for long.


Foreign aid is indeed sometimes used as a ploy to gain voters' sympathy. A power play engineered to create a sense of compassion and generosity. My opponent rightly points out that many leaders are dishonest about their spending on foreign aid- many U. S. Citizens are under the impression that 20% of their budget goes towards foreign aid, Far off from the true figure of less than 1%.
However, There are alternative methods to providing foreign aid that aren't always dishonest and unreliable. Charities are more open about their spending, And are often open to volunteers to oversee monetary spending and that their money actually goes to the country and communities of choice. They dedicate a substantial amount of their budget towards donation, And (proportedly) uses as small as an amount as possible as necessary spending to get that support over to any country. Charities are far more reliable ways to ensure that money goes to the disavantaged as foreign aid spending budgets are often halved or cut in many, Many countries.

Governments may spend money quite questionably in sums that are suspiciously proportionate to recieved foreign aid as Pro points out. However, These countries still divert a surprising amount of money to their people, Who rely on this additional money to survive. An address by Kee B. Park and Eliana E. Kim in an address to the United Nations Council pointed out that North Korea would only be able to diverge a small amount of aid money to its' nuclear weapons production and higher-ups. 90% of all humanitarian aid crosses into North Korea not as capital (money) but other resources such as food, Medicine and other supplies; these are difficult resources with which to commit fraud and embezzlement and quite often go to their originally intended targets. Such a statistic is often true to less sanctioned countries- if their government is notorious for inappropriately spending the money, The intended support is provided through different means such as pre-purchased foods and medicinal supplies.

Aside from repetitive annual spending on countries which can considerably dilute the money that goes to their people, Foreign aid is completely necessary for countries stricken by disaster. In the event of disaster, Many people are unable to access supplies such as food, Clean water and hygiene products. Though governments are often prepared for these disasters, Less wealthy countries are unable to subsidize costs and rely completely on foreign aid. Without foreign aid these countries' people would suffer due to their inability to access crucial supplies.

Finally, Back to my comment about saving Einstein.
A tyrannical rule may be what shaped Einstein. He was born in Germany and helped to betray his country with research into the nuclear bomb after all (he was the dude who persuaded the development of such a weapon). What I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to tell what conditions shape the next Einstein and it's absurd to say that being born under an authoritarian dictatorship will completely quell the intelligent from shaping society. It's however entirely possible to state that cutting off supplies and ensuring that they're not even born at all because their parents died will kill the next Einstein, Stopping such a person from changing the world.
And isn't it really selfish to only help countries to save the next Einstein? If everyone has a chance at life like the privileged minority, Not only will a host of Einsteins likely result, We'll have an overall prosperous and peaceful world which will benefit everyone.
Debate Round No. 2


Charities are FAR MORE RELIABLE?

Have you never heard of charities scamming people and using most of what they get for profit?

And again, Countries that receive support profit too, Even if it is from charities. Lets say the charities were giving bread to NOrth Korea, To better feed the population. Instead of their citizens getting their normal meals, And then eating the extra bread on top of their normal meal, The bread REPLACES their meal, And the leaders of the nation pocket the difference. Either way, The country that receives support benefits anyways. This also goes with your second point.

You bring up the point about less developed countries needing to rely on foreign aid when things like epidemics and disasters occur. However, There is another solution; Instead of us supplying this aid for free, We can give them the aid, And then let them repay us back sometime later, When they are in a better condition. On the other hand, This may be a bit unfair still to the less developed nation, So instead of paying back the entire sum, They can pay a portion instead. This limits the amount of money corrupt officials can keep and in turn makes it more likely for everyone to have each others backs in the future.

And to adress your Einstein thing: The problem in your argument is that Einstein betrayed his own country and fled. The key word is fled. Foreign aid does not mean that the citizens of that country are allowed to leave and go on an airplane to another country. Even if foreign aid is able to save another Einstein, The family he was born in might no have enough resources to help him make his scientific researches and breakthroughs, Let alone travel to a better country to do it.


I'll provide substantiation after rebuttal.

Unlike governments providing foreign aid, People donating to charities have the luxury of choice. They have the luxury of investigating just what they're going to help fund. There are corrupt charities- there are also corrupt governments. You can choose to avoid corrupt charities, And it's a little harder to avoid corrupt governments. It's just how it works- anywhere you go, Something's going to exploit the system. However, With charities, You're a little more able to dodge such disgusting figures.

'Countries that recieve support profit too, Even if it's from charities. ' There are charities who specifically donate through mediums which are quite hard to cheat on and pocket for your own good. As I said: perishables like foods, Medical supplies, Perhaps construction work and education- even if the government picks off some for itself, The country will be better off with that help than without. What's the problem with a country profiting anyway? It's for our own good that everyone benefits and are successful, As I've said.

'However, There is another solution: instead of us supplying this aid for free, [we can get them to pay it later]. ' I believe 'donation' is a word whose definition does not include asking for repayment- that's just loaning money. Leaving an already ravaged country in debt to others isn't a great way to ensure that their people live happy and healthy lives. Foreign aid and emergency relief aid don't cost too much to wealthy nations. It's a win-win- the stricken nation recieves aid, At little cost to the donating country, And at the same time the donating country looks better on the world stage. It's a system that's been working perfectly, And your solution doesn't really revolutionise anything viable.

'The problem with your argument is that Einstein betrayed his own country and fled. The key word is fled. ' That entire argument is based off of assumptions. 'Their family might not have enough resources to help him make his breakthroughs and researches. ' 'They might not be allowed to leave. ' We don't know that. And keeping them alive is better than killing them. It's in our best interests that there's even the smallest chance that someone might change the world for the better. It's absurd to consider every little variable- it's selfish and honestly not the best excuse for not using our best human characteristic- compassion- to help others in need.

Now for some substantiation.

Foreign aid is an extension of human compassion. It's a nice thing to do. Foreign aid isn't usually a great sacrifice either- most countries' budgets towards this aid are less than 1%. This <1% is still worth so much to countries in need, Countries stricken by disaster, Countries which would otherwise crumble and their citizens starve without this sort of aid.
Countries which provide foreign aid have citizens who live at a far higher standard than the usual targets of the foreign aid. Foreign aid budgets should be untouchable indeed- to say that countries can't spend leftover money potentially saving thousands of lives is absurd. As a free society all human beings should be concerned with the welfare of others- we have an obligation to do whatever is possible to help others, The kind of value which kept human beings alive during moments of international despair, Whether this is in recent years or during the Stone Age where we warred against mammoths and Neanderthals.

If it's at little cost to us, It's absurd that we selfishly keep it to ourselves. However, Even if it's at a little cost to us, It's at an infinite benefit to everyone around the world- people who could grow up to change the world. It's an extension of human compassion, And it's absurd to say that we shouldn't because other countries mightn't spend it wisely.

I'll look forward to rebuttable content in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since charities are not controlled by the government, That means that although you have more freedom to choose which to donate to, It also means that charities have more freedom to do what they want with the money. All charities want to look good on the outside, And there are some charities that profit very little. However, All charities must still profit. There are loopholes everywhere, And charities and governments alike exploit them. Name one charity that does not make profit. I guarentee there will be very few or none.

Even if it is hard for countries to cheat some charities, It does not escape the fact that the charities themselves also pocket money. Either way, One side profits.

Man. Take free healthcare as an example. If someone need to undergo a lot of surgery, It will cost a hella amount of money. Fortunately, In places like Canada, Healthcare is free, And so you don't need to pay for such a huge amount. However, You pay taxes, And the cost for even 3 surguries can cost more than an average person's entire tax expense. The point I'm trying to make is that we give some, We take back some. Thats only fair, Right? Although looking good and cool on the world stage is awesome, It is not everything. There are other matters INSIDE the country that we need to care about, Too.

If someone is useless, Why keep them alive? Their just wasting resources and not giving anything back into society.

And now to refute your substantiation:

Your first point brings up something I have again refuted before. WHen countries like North Korea receive foreign aid that is supposed to help feed its citizens, Life does not get better. Instead of getting more food, Or water, From the aid, The aid replaces their normal diet, And the leaders pocket the difference. Either way, The citizens get the same treatment.

I'm also not really convinced that all humans should look out for one another. Virtually all humans are selfish, And all will try to do and receive things to benefit themselves in the long run. People also give aid not because they are feeling sympathy, But because it is nessesary. Take Microsoft as an example. Back in the old days, Microsoft was getting huge. So huge that the government was about to step in and cut Microsoft from certain things. So, Bill Gates "did an act of sympathy" and gave Apple a sum of money.


It appears Pro has decided the last rounds are rebuttal rounds. I will adhere to that and not offer any more substantiation.

'Charities have more freedom to do what they want with the money. All charities must profit. '
I will reiterate my point as Pro seems to think that repeating their same point as a counter rebuttal except even worse is something they can use. Charities must all profit. Some charities are dishonest, Which is something we cannot avoid as Pro rightly points out for the second time in a row. However, Charities can be chosen whilst governments cannot. Charities are far more open to investigation. Charities are therefore easier to investigate and are at all possible to choose between. The fact that some charities are dishonest means nothing when you have the ability to investigate what you're putting your money towards. Pro doesn't seem to understand this point.

'Even if it's hard for countries to cheat some charities, It doesn't escape the fact that the charities themselves also pocket money. Either way, One side profits. '
What am I meant to gather from this point? Foreign aid has been established as something that isn't entirely a generous act of charity and compassion. I have said that many charities make it difficult for a target country to steal all of the donations: Pro simply repeats my point. I do not understand what Pro wants to say in this point.

'Man. Take free healthcare as an example- if someone [needs] to undergo a lot of surgery, It will cost a hella amount of money. ' Pro makes the assumption that we are all living in America. Pro also states the obvious- surgery costs money, And lots of surgery means lots of money spent.
(Paraphrased:) 'Canadian healthcare is free but we pay more taxes than your average surgery. The point is, We give some, We take some, Right? Looking good and cool on the world stage is awesome. However there are matters INSIDE the country that we need to take care of, Too. ' Pro establishes nothing with this arguments. Pro seemed to use healthcare as an analogy to say 'There are domestic matters that are more important than international politics' but doesn't really hint at this speifically. An overall convoluted and confusing argument.

'If someone is useless, Why keep them alive? Their [sic] just wasting resources and not giving anything back into society. '
Absolutely absurd and ridiculous logic. And a point that I've already addressed with 'human compassion', Which Pro still hasn't addressed properly at all.

'Your first point brings up something I've refuted before- North Korea's government pockets all of the donations and foreign aid replaces North Koreans' normal diet' (paraphrased).
Not only is that not my first point, It's absurd to think 'you mention something I've addressed- a valid point to bring up'. This is also a sign that you have not fully read my debate in that I have pointed out that perishables are the main source of aid for North Koreans in need, Supported by statistics. Pro has continuously made the claim that North Korea's government pockets all of the foreign aid coming in and that no North Koreans recieve donations without addressing my rebuttal about this issue. Pro ignores my rebuttal and brings it up again.

'I'm not really convinced that people should look out for one another- virtually all humans are selfish and will try and benefit themselves in the long run. Microsoft was getting huge, The government was about to step in and weaken Microsoft, So Bill Gates gave Apple money. ' (Paraphrased)
Again, An incredibly convoluted and confusing argument. Pro 'thinks' that people shouldn't look out for one another, Which is somehow backed up by an unsupported statement of 'all humans are selfish and try and benefit themselves'. Not only is Pro using personal opinions to debate which isn't the best conduct, Pro again makes an outlandish statement to back this up which is uncited and notably unsupported anyway. As another confusing way to back this up, Pro brings up the fact that Microsoft's CEO gave a sum of money to Apple. Pro does not mention how this makes Gates selfish and attempting to benefit themselves in the long run.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Anonymous03 3 years ago
Akhenaten isn't used to having multiple people disagree with him.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
at least the position can be argued by a sane person, Unlike anything that comes out of your moth
Posted by TTheLionSleepsTonighTT 3 years ago
God Akhenaten. You know what this means. It basically means to abolish foreign aid. You are old enough to understand this. If you're not, You need to get a "PhD in commonsense". Like seriously you are a jerk. Nobody likes your "virus is not a thing" arguments and that "vaccinations are a scam".
Posted by Anonymous03 3 years ago
Akhenaten, See here, No-one actually wants your opinion. I love how you want to seem relevant outside of the 'viruses aren't a thing and the government's a scam' sector of the Internet, But whenever you try to, You just come across as a jerk.
Go back to getting bashed by people with medical degrees. Don't comment in debates unless you're actually interested. 'The title is a bit wishy washy. ' No-one wants to debate with you, And no-one's missing out on anything if they're not talking to you.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
I would debate you if I knew what the debate was about. The title is a bit wishy washy and doesn't indicate a position. A "thing" can be anything. Thus, It doesn't make any sense. Try using real words instead of nothing words like "thing".
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.