The amount of foreign aid given by developed countries should be increased.

Firstly, I'd like to remind my opponent of the definition of foreign aid: WEALTH given from one country to another. Wealth does not imply or mean weapons at all. That being said, I will now move onto my rebuttals. Firstly, the United States is only one example, which certainly doesn't constitute or encompass all developed countries. You've taken one country that's responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, who's doing arguably the worst out of the developed countries, and then placed it on a pedestal to act as a general example of what all developed countries are going through -- a blatant combination of the fallacies Hasty Generalization as well as Straw Man. Not only that, but he's stated that:Foreign Aid packages are hugefollowed by Foreign Aid is a minor...burden I also believe that my opponent is confused as to the definition of foreign aid:That's what happens when we give aid in the form of weapons like we did to the Mujaheddin in the 1990's...The whole argument afterwards is irrelevant, as this type of aid does not match the aid that is outlined in the definition. Thus, the only contention my opponent has made is that Foreign Aid is harmful to the interests of developed countries because the United States (possibly the worst developed nation in terms of economics at this point in time) is near broke and borrows money from China in order to help the budget, coupled with the argument that foreign aid takes money from the poor and middle class and it is sent to dictators. Yet what is not said by Side Opposition in this debate is that developed nations have social security nets that make sure the poor and middle class of this country aren't deprived of their basic rights. Meanwhile, many in developing nations still do not have access to basic human rights, as I've stated in my first argument. The issue of dictators and corrupt governments can easily be bypassed by Side Proposition's simple plan. Firstly, we have to ask and take surveys of the people, not the government. Many governments, as the opposition has stated, are not just and will ask for foreign aid, so surveys of the people may be more accurate. However, to ensure that wealth is allocated correctly, we must send people in and personally be responsible for the transfer of aid and wealth. If a large portion of the developing nation believes it can stand on it's own, then we do not have to give foreign aid to them for now and allocate the wealth back into our own country.Secondly, we can give a fraction of the foreign aid for a short amount of time and ensure that it's done correctly. Corrupt governments cannot do so well without foreign aid, and we can threaten to stop giving foreign aid unless we are allowed to be there to ensure the allocation of resources. Finally, we can give the idea to the people of these developing nations, especially women. We can educate them in balanced and developed countries because these people are in poverty and are obviously interested in seeing growth in families, which will in the longer term mean growth in countries. Then, these people will return to their own country to oversee where the foreign aid goes to. My opponent's first contention is further refuted with the fact that if foreign aid is not given, it is likely that countries will remain in poverty for a long time, even if they do better. Poverty will most likely lead to civil unrest, which means that extremist groups can hire troops more easily, causing detriment to developed countries, and this civil unrest and poverty was what allowed Hitler in Germany to come to power [1] and begin the genocide of the Jews. My opponent claims that foreign aid is detrimental to developed countries, but how is it detrimental if by giving foreign aid, we are actually helping both ourselves from terrorist and extremist threats as well as aiding other countries in the same manner as well as boosting their living standards?My opponent's second contention against uses the hasty generalization of the United States as well as how Israel does not wish for foreign aid, which is easily refuted by the plan of Side Proposition. Furthermore, as Stephen Louis has stated in the 2009 Munk Debates [2]: Millions of people living with HIV AIDS alive today, who without aid for anti-retroviral drugs would be dead; millions of children immunized against fatal diseases; over 30 million additional African children in schools since the year 2000; modest reduction in extreme poverty, from 58 percent to 51 percent between 1999 and 2007; 12 million orphans with the prospect of food; malaria death rates cut in half in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia over the course of just two years because of insecticide-treated bed-nets. I could go on ad infinitum. This is aid, aid that gets to the grassroots, aid that transforms open communities.In the face of this evidence, side Opposition's arguments of how aid does not get to the people and only goes to corrupt dictators as well as how foreign aid is harmful to developing countries is easily refuted. As a result, side Proposition has nulled both contentions of the worthy opponent. I look forward to my opponent's objections.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_rise_to_power [2] http://www.munkdebates.com..., pages 3 to 4