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

Ok so lets first look at the resolution: 1st it specifies the United States, meaning that the aid must come from a government entity, not a private organization that operates separately from the government. This means that aid would be provide by USAID as it is the current government entity that provides foreign aid. My opponent cannot say that we will use a hypothetical organization or one that has not yet been created (but should be), because there is no way for me to know how it will function or what disadvantages and flaws it will have. 2nd it asks what the United States "should" do. What one should do is what is morally obligated. As the negative, I have to show that there is no moral obligation for the US to send foreign aid to forced child laborers in third world countries. No obligation can be seen in two instances: 1) The act is neither moral right nor morally wrong. For example if a glass of water is in front of me, i am not morally obligated to drink it or to not drink it. So I can choose either option and not act immoral. 2) There is a greater obligation to not send aid than there is to send aid. An example of this would be if I have only enough money to either pay back a friend or pay my taxes. My obligation to pay my taxes outweighs my obligation to pay back my friend. My arguments will prove that the United States does not have a moral obligation to send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries. 1) A governments only obligation is to protect its citizens. In order for a country to exist and a government to have a purpose, it must have citizens. A government has no obligation to protect people in other countries. If this were false , it would imply that if country A and country B were at war, then country C would have the obligation to protect the citizens of A and B. So at the least, the United states would not be morally wrong if it chose either to send aid or not to send aid. However, sending aid will harm US citizens. 1) In order to meet the financial burden of sending the kind of aid my opponent talks about taxes will have to be raised. This will financially hurt the US economy as the tax payers will have less money to spend. Thus Americans will cut back on spending an the economy will start to suffer. And, as seen in recent events when the economy starts to suffer companies start cutting jobs. This only further hurts the economy as even less money is being spent if people aren't getting paid. 2) Natives perceive USAID as stealing local jobs. (Stone and Clad) "Congress and the executive branch have burdened USAID Labor union complaints that USAID provokes domestic job losses also served to crimp the agency. The impact abroad of this programmatic jumble, tightfistedness and runaway conditionality has been one of incredulity. " When the natives see Americans as stealing their jobs instead of trying, the country gains hostility against the United States. This increases the chance of terrorist attacks and/or a declaration of war. So, because the US governments greatest obligation is to protect its citizens, it is obligated to not send aid for their protection. 2) In the past USAID has been ineffective. a) USAID lacks leadership, resources, knowledge, and is an ineffective bureaucracy—that lacks a coherent purpose. (Stone and Clad) "USAID has become a dispirited bureaucracy lacking leadership, resources and rationale. Periodic electoral changes have resulted in ideologically inspired shifts in aid policy, as in the abrupt tilt toward free-market development after 1981 and the beginning of the Reagan years. Couple this with USAID's long subservience to Cold War calculations, particularly to anti-Soviet strategies that compelled support for authoritarian regimes, and the result is a jumble of activities without coherent purpose." b) USAID lacks knowledge of local conditions, which undermines effectiveness, wastes money, and only exacerbates the problem by wasting time. (Bate) "Western consultants are often ineffective because they lack the requisite knowledge of local conditions. During a $5 million malaria effort the local health staff ran into major problems because USAID's consultants never actually visited the program area. The project subsequently failed to meet the bulk of its objectives, wasting not only money, but also the efforts of those taking part in the program and undermining the hope of those who may have benefited from it." C)USAID is an inadequate bureaucracy which is plagued with insider corruption, and formation of insidious alliances. (Bate ) "Other problems as chronic corruption among officials involving state expenses, creating very close alliances with favored contractors and terminating contracts with organizations which complain or criticize the Agency's practices" Therefore, even if the United Stated had an obligation to send aid, the aid would not help the situation and would only serve as a waste of money that could be put toward helping the people of the US. As such, the US would be more obligated to not send aid than it is to send the aid. Now on to my opponent's case. Contention 1) Here, my opponent tries to explain that the condition that the children are in is a reason for the US to send aid. He does not give a warrant as to why the United States has to send aid. Further he provides no warrant that states that US aid will actually help, he only claims that it will. So all we can take away from this contention is that the children live in poor conditions, which we already knew and provides no offense for my opponent. Contention 2) While the general idea of this contention is good, it has one crucial flaw: The example provided does not mention the US, it shows someone BRAZIL going to school in BRAZIL and receiving the education required to stop the ranchers from destroying the forest. What this proves is that other countries do not need the help of the United states in order to make a change (The Cesar Chavez example follows the same logic). Thus you can turn this argument as it provides a reason for the US to not send aid. Further this contention lacks warrants as to the effectiveness of the US sending educational help. It is clear that my opponent has not actually provide any evidence that the US should send aid, he has only provided a description of work conditions and proof that education is beneficial.