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

Due to the fact I have not stated (I apologize) any style of debate we will go with the more traditional debate style using one's critical thinking and logic rather stating someone else's opinion. Road Map: Clarify. Pro's case. Con's Case. Clarifications: 1st paragraph: Private relief aids programs in the U. S are also included. Basically any relief programs stationed in the U. S are included. Even the USAID. We will discuss this in a general sense. 2nd paragraph: Everyone knows great power comes with great responsibility. It is our moral obligation to help those in need. Example: Without the aid of philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie the U. S would have not been what it is today and the world too (he founded many educational facilities around the world though education). Many negative drastic changes would have occurred without such aids such as an increasing amount of uneducated. As the major superpower we ought to be doing for the greater good. My case: Contention 1: I do apologize for not finishing the contention. In turn the U. S has helped relieve the impacts of poverty and we can learn and apply it to our system. Anyway: Yes we both agree that children are working under such stressed labor. In a hypothetical situation sending civilian aid to children is less costly than sending military troops to neutralize rebellions. This will also influence them into democracy. Children are more prone to change than adults, so this is a great opportunity to reform third world countries without using much military might/cost. It's a form of soft influential power and thus makes it more humane and reasonable. Contention 2: Marina Silva de Souza was educated in a missionary school. Usually missionary schools are funded by foreign religious branches, so technically she was not educated through the Brazilian government. Cesar Chavez was educated in the U. S, lived in the U. S, and worked in the U. S. . http://clnet.ucla.edu... Thus this doesn't follow my opponent's argument. Elaborating: Sending educational aid will educate them about democracy and once they come to age they will be able to reform their government without our military intervention. Thus relieving our image as a butcher and allow the next generation to govern how they see fit. So thus my arguments stand. Opponent's case: 1) As the major superpower we have too much power and with power come great responsibility. It is our obligation to help others. Country C will still have to protect citizens A & B because citizens from A & B will immigrate to C and C has more resources than A & B thus the economy of C is stronger. Proven example: U. S in WW1 and WW2. His 1st point: We do not exactly have to send money. In the U. S we obviously have too much of some things. An example is food: U. S farmers produce a surplus after a harvest, usually these cannot be consumed within the given timeframe. Selling them would be an option, but foreign natives prefer to consume what they grow; and others have genetic engineering technology so they also produce enough to feed so they won't need to import food. So that really not an option. But what we can do is send the surplus to third world countries. We don't waste food in this sense and we are exercising soft power. Neither do we have to to this until they are dependent but enough to keep them alive and prosperous. 2nd point: How so? USAID are not stealing jobs. We could just share the technology if you like. 2) Again there are other alternatives besides USAID for sending aid to third world countries. a-c) Well, reform they system and make it effective or replace it with a better system. Overall in response U. S should sending aid to child laborers in third world countries. It is a moral obligation as a superpower to do so. Thank you and I await your response LaLaLa.