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

This is an important debate. To the voters, when deciding who won this debate, ask yourselves two questions. They are as follows: Is foreign aid beneficial to the interests of developing countries? Is foreign aid beneficial to the interests of developed countries? The answer to both questions is no and here's why. Firstly, foreign aid is NOT beneficial to the interests of developing countries. In my opening argument I gave a great example of a country where foreign aid has not been beneficial and that country is an ally of most developed countries, Israel. Israel certainly faces challenges because they're a fairly new country and they are in a dangerous geographic region. Israel has surprised the rest of the world by existing after trials through poverty, antisemitism, and aggression from other countries in the region such as Iran. However, Israel still wants to become self reliant. This is not to say that Israel can be as independent as the United States militarily. Israel's allies must still stand by its side so to speak. A plurality of Israeli's surveyed said they want to become less dependent on foreign aid. If the Israelis believe that they can stand on their own, then who are we, the developed world, to stand in the way? Secondly, foreign aid not in Israel, but around Israel has hurt them. With massive amounts of foreign aid from developed countries to countries like Egypt and Iraq, dictators turn a lot of that money into weapons of war. Thanks to developed countries supporting democracy in Egypt, there is now a more hostile regime that is more anti-Israel. That foreign aid softens Israel for their security. They should have their sovereignty back and they shouldn't have to have other countries send them aid, which is largely sent because other countries that receive the same aid pose a threat to them. So no, foreign aid is definitely not beneficial to the interests of developing countries. . http://www.jpost.com... Secondly, foreign aid is not beneficial to the interests of developed nations. Throughout this debate I have cited the U. S and the U. K as examples of developed countries, mainly because they give more foreign aid than any other countries. There is the obvious fiscal issue that my opponent really has not addressed. Again, in 2012, the U. S spent 48.4 billion dollars in foreign aid and the U. K spent roughly two thirds of that. You may not think that's a lot of money for a rich country, but the U. S is broke. We have to borrow this money mainly from China. Also, there is the issue that the foreign aid we send not only doesn't help the interests of the people of those countries, but it doesn't help our own interests. As a nation it is our responsibility to take care of ourselves first. We send money to Egypt and Iraq, but ignore the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling here at home. The money we send one way or another becomes weapons of war that are used all around the developing world, and usually it is against our interests. The U. S aided and armed radical groups all over the middle east. My opponent can argue that this is not foreign aid, but it is a form of wealth because we have to pay for the weapons ourselves. And since we're talking about who this is good for, why don't we ask the people what they think. A poll from multiple sources says 6 out of 10 Americans agree that aid to Israel (an ally) should be decreased. And abroad it's the same. A Gallup poll shows 82% of Egyptians oppose U. S aid. Clearly, foreign aid is not in the best interests of developed countries. . http://www.gallup.com... . http://www.ifamericansknew.org... Now I will attack my opponent's most recent arguments. My opponent argues that we have a moral obligation to help those in need. While this is true, it does not mean we have to harm our interests and the interests of the poor in the process, which is what foreign does currently. My opponent then argues that the aid does help those in need. He gives an example and says that the benefits outweigh the costs. Except the benefits outweighing the costs is almost never the case in foreign aid. Why? Because the value of it increases when it gets to developing countries. Let me give an example. The United States sends billions of dollars to Egypt every year, and that is valuable here, but it is much more valuable in Egypt. And therefore when it is corrupted and used as weapons of war, it ends up doing a lot more damage than the good it could've done in America. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... My opponent also argues the following, "The fourth and final question to this debate is: should the possibility of negative effects deter the rich countries from attempting to help financially troubled nations? " Yes, especially if those negative effects are happening and are not hypothetical. My opponent makes it seem like the negatives here are a possibility, but they're not. Foreign aid really is used as weapons of war all around the world. I have provided sources proving this statement. My opponent also attack's my argument about Israel. He says that Israel is not dependent on U. S aid. He just proved my point. Israel is not dependent on the aid, and I'm not saying the opposite. I was implying that continuing this aid will teach them to be dependent on us. If this aid does so little for the people of Israel and (like I pointed out earlier in my closing argument) does so much harm around them, why continue? "Just because Israel and a few similar countries can survive without foreign aid does not mean that foreign aid shouldn't be given to the more unfortunate -- so this argument doesn't necessarily have relevance to the resolution. " I don't think my opponent understands what foreign aid does a lot of the time. My opponent depicts foreign aid as some form of welfare, healthcare, or social security program, when in reality it is weapons, money, and bread in the best case scenario. Many countries can stand on their own as long as they have a strong ally to frighten their enemies. Foreign aid is not beneficial to these countries. For many reasons, con has won this debate. I urge the voters to think about what needed to be proven, who proved it and why that's important.