The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

I would like to remind Con that the purpose of debate is to refute arguments made, not attacking one's position as you has been doing for the past 2 rounds. Thank you. Roadmap: Attack Con's refutals and go over my case then voting issues. Rebuttals against Con: 1) No response: dropped it/silent is consent and had the opportunity to refute but did not and thus cannot bring it up in round 3 because I cannot refute it. Con's idea of burning factories is very childish. 2) Violent protesters produces the most negative reaction from the public. Violence is symbolical as a desperate last ditch effort for change. Its positive effects are short-lived. Pacifism actually achieves more than violence. Con's theory of India's independence is only partially why. India practiced civil disobedience, non-violently of course, such as the Salt March. This and other boycotts where some reasons the British could not tax imported goods thus withdrew from India. Gandhi did directly stop British rule by uniting most Indians in the boycott. 1960s goal was achieved: U.S withdrew from Vietnam War and have equal rights for everyone. It changes society politically and socially. So a violent approach to end child laborers in the government is unreasonable. Another example Caesar Chavez led the grape pickers for better pay and housing through non-violent means such as picketing. The growers respond by harassing and attacking strikers, soon public opinion turned to favor grape pickers and the pickers won. http://clnet.ucla.edu... http://www.pbs.org... 3) My worthy opponent has failed to describe or even state the realistic impacts after dismantling civilization. Basically according to Con: because civilization creates hierarchy there is a line between rich and poor, by getting rid of civilization the two classes meet. Pro's argument: Children will still have to work (sometimes even harder to compete for food) sooner or later no one would know what the do and the meaning of life in pointless until we form some sort of groups and thus civilization rises again and the process repeats. Therefore getting rid of civilization is utterly inhumane and pointless to end child labor. 4) Definition: Anarchism = belief in abolishing government voluntarily. Rebuttals: (refer to #3). If it is the natural human struggle then why did our ancestors form hierarchy in the first place? Without a government everyone needs to work to live, like communism (except it has a government). Does it work in reality? Like all other ideas, noooooo. Prove how anarchism promotes enjoyment of life. You are always on the run, killing each other, never settling down, dying early, etc. With a government there is order and with order is corporation and with that people get things done and with that life is easier and equal (with technology) if everyone does the same amount of work. Pro's impact: Why send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries? We have failed on several occasions to change "third world" society. So by sending non-military aid to them, as they are the new generation knowing the hardships of life as such a young age, they will have the chance to do what they see fit to end child labor and improve the quality of life and remove their country from the "3rd world" list. This is the goal. Pro's case: 1) Dropped this argument in 2 rounds, silence is consent, and cannot bring it back up because there isn't another round for Pro to refute it. Recap: By sending aid to improve the life of the child laborers they improve in morale for reforms led by themselves. This creates the attention of child influence. This in turn will affect the government and society in a positive way where now everyone in society has the chance to make a difference with their lives. 2) Again Con dropped this argument in 2 rounds, silence is consent, and cannot bring it back up because there isn't another round for Pro to refute it. Recap: By sending education aid children are able to learn and develop an ambition for knowledge and compete for better higher-paying jobs. This in turn will impact society with a new generation of educated young workers. Who knows maybe some of them will find a cure for cancer. Voting Issues: 1) Con dropped/agreed to my contentions by not refuting them. Silence is consent. 2) Pro's non-violent approach to end child labor in third world countries is more effective than Con's short-lived alternatives. 3) Pro's impacts are more reasonable than Con's (if he has one). 4) Con kind of missed some key example of pacifism, such as protests in France to get national healthcare(Sicko documentary movie). With all that said vote for Pro. And thank you warllamas for this interesting debate! And thank you for any voters reading this!