Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

Thank you, itslizyall for that response. Now, I'll move on to my final speech, where I will respond to some of the major points in the round, and go over some of the reasons I believe I've won them. Value debate: My opponent addresses my attacks on her value and value criterion by saying my interpretation of the resolution is abusive. However, it should be clarified that without a defining word in the resolution to specify anything, we have to assume it applies to all cases. Under my case the resolution cannot be upheld. She can possibly win this debate, but only if my case is false. Of my case is true, then I adequately negate her position. Now, regarding the attacks on my value, she states that the governments who can't supply the aid are not legitimate. She provided no reasoning or evidence for this, and thus the attack is a bare assertion. Further into the attack she says I cannot solve the situation. The attack would be good for a policy debate, but as are the rules of Lincoln-Douglas it would actually be illegal for me to provide some sort of a plan to solve the problem of human suffering. All I must do is prove that the resolution is not always true. Her attack on my value criterion would be true, if it didn't rely on the necessary condition that this statement is true: all nations are necessarily tied to each other's populace. That statement is not true. Each government is tied to its own people. It does not abridge state autonomy to place conditions on another country in order to retain such autonomy to one's own nation. We cannot assert something as true when its prerequisites aren't true. The basic arguments: Effectiveness: My opponent had agreed that effectiveness can make an action just or unjust. My opponent actually denies this in response to my attack on her first contention, but that poses a problem for her. Either we throw out her first contention as it does not adequately uphold the position that conditional aid is unjust, or we accept it and my position can be declared just. Regarding my example, it has not been adequately refuted that conditional aid did a better job in Macedonia than unconditional aid. All that has been said is that unconditional aid supplied money but not that it was more effective than conditional aid. As effectiveness is a valid method of determining humanitarian aid to be just, this must be a serious point of consideration. As a refresher, if the goal of humanitarian aid is essentially to relieve suffering, and conditional aid effectively relieves suffering in some cases, under my opponents own case, these situations must be seen as just. Empirics: My opponent's fatal move in this debate is using inductive reasoning to uphold the resolution. Inductive reasoning is a process of determine universal law by using specific examples. Empirics is an example of inductive reasoning. While my opponent can uphold the resolution in some cases, she cannot in others. My burden is not to universally negate the resolution, only to remove surety that the resolution is true in all cases. As I've brought up with the incident of Macedonia, there are cases where a country experiencing unrest needs political involvement in order for humanitarian aid to be distributed properly. Other examples include countries where a government has fallen and regimes will block humanitarian groups from getting the aid to other regimes where people may be suffering. Political and military actors need to be involved, and this happens when political conditions are put on humanitarian aid. Duty of Government: This has not been a strongly debated point, but keep in mind my points made about each government. My point is not to be heartless about human suffering, but a government is only tied to its own people. They are not obligated in any way to the populace of another state. This means it is not unjust for a government to entirely ignore the foreign state. If they give humanitarian aid, they have no obligations with it and may dictate either how that aid is used or what must be done to get the aid. It is a nation's own resources being used that do not belong to another nation. Now, my opponent argues that conditional aid actually harms the donor countries, but her argument only applies where a certain necessary condition is met, which is when the conditions are rejected. As it stands, I still do not need to address this as it does not apply to all cases. We can't assume under the resolution that all countries will reject the conditions and thus not uphold the entire resolution. Closing Statements: So far, my opponent has not adequately upheld her position to affirm the resolution. As is the case, I have adequately negated her position. We must keep in mind the duty of government, which is to its own people not to another's, and the burden under the resolution. My opponent has not been able to adequately disprove these points. I ask that you vote in my favor, and thank you for reading.