African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies

I am a student of logic, and as such I can say your arguments are red herrings.The resolution: "African aid is wrong and the money is better spent on popcorn and movies"Wrong:" not in accordance with what is morally right or good".In order to fulfil the BoP, my opponent must first prove foreign aid in Africa is morally wrong. I don't even have to prove that it's right, but I will.Providing African Americans With Aid Is Moral:A)Deontological Ethics : "Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules."Categorical Imperative: " Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"P1) If not performing an act, would result in a less favorable universe, then the act is moral.P2) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe.C1) Providing aid to Africans is moralSyllogism defense of P2:P1)Dying and starving is less desirable than not starving and dyingP2) Promoting death prevention(not dying) and prevention of starving is favorableC1) Providing aid to starving and dying Africans results in a favorable universe.Syllogism 2 neccesarily substantiates P2 in syllogism 1. In regards to Deontology, aid in Africa is moral.B) Consequentialism: "Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences."P1) If not performing an act, results in worse consequences than performing the act, the act is moral.P2) Not providing aid to Africans results in worse consequences, than providing aid.C1) Providing aid to African's is moralDefense of P2: Although the system is not perfect, not sending aid to Africa will result in much more death and starvation. Death and starvation are bad consequences. So acting in a way that reduces death and starvation is moral.In regards to consequentialism, sending aid to Africa is moral.Part 2 Of The Resolution: In addition to proving sending aid is wrong, he must also prove spending the aid money on popcorn and movies is more moral and productive. (Hundreds of billions on popcorn and movies). As aforementioned, taking away all aid would have bad consequences. I maintain that spending it on popcorn and movies would not result in better consequences. BoP is on pro to show that it would. Pro must convincingly prove this second part of the resolution, he just can't maintain it by default.Noll Hypothesis: " A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis."So unless he can conclusively prove allocating the money to popcorn and movies would result in better consequences, he can't fulfill his BoP.Aid Is In Accordance With The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.un.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.investopedia.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...