Charity is an appalling excuse for the abuses of capitalism

"While my opponent makes some interesting points, there seem to be no real arguments to affirm the resolution. There are no facts, statistics, or anything else to support such a claim. Afterall, I assure you that charity absolutely DOES help those in need. Why don't we ask the thousands of Haitians, who benefited from one of the largest charities in history, if they believe charity is counter intuitive? They might have something to say about the resolution.http://www.google.com...; I'm not implying that charity has absolutely no effect in the world, and I'm certainly not saying we should get rid of charity altogether - at least, not until we find a better replacement. But let me reiterate that although charity does help, the extent to which it does so is small - it's bound to be, the sheer number of those living in poverty (about 3.14 billion on less than $2.50 a day) means they simply can't all be helped just through the works of charitable organisations. I think if you were to ask the Haitians about their predicament they'd express exasperation at the fact that they have to rely almost entirely on aid and charity from other nations, rather than being able to cope with the crisis themselves - surely a result of vast economic inequalities between classes, meaning the proper equipment and resources needed to cope with the crisis are not available. Analogous to this problem is that of the global food crisis (which charity and aid is supposed to help with). In late 2008, Clinton criticised US food aid policies, as well as the World Bank, the IMF, and other global institutions, because they forced African markets to drop agricultural self-sufficiency in favour of food aid. The result of these policies is skyrocketing food prices, forcing more people into poverty. We can see here that charity and foreign aid do help to some superficial extent in the provision of immediate resources, but once those resources are used up, there is no solid infrastructure for these people to fall back on. In the case of those recipients of US food aid, African farmers are even worse off than before because there is no longer any government subsidies for self-sufficient agriculture. Charity enables economic inequalities to be sustained by acting as an ersatz remedy to poverty - poverty which is caused by the action of global market forces. I think that charity should no longer be used as an excuse for crises of capitalism, that we should stop kidding ourselves and see what the root of the problem really is. ................... "Afterall, even if only 1000 lives a year are saved due to charities, the resolution should be negated, and that would be an utmost conservative number." This attitude is precisely how charity functions as a veil covering the real roots of the problem it is intended to solve. Tens of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives are sustained by charity and foreign aid in a year, fine - but how many are lost, or are forced to live in terrible conditions because of globalisation, outsourcing, national debts, structural readjustments etc., charity is like a band-aid on a gaping wound. Charity will only prolong the problems it intends to solve. To actually fix these vast problems that affect us globally, something big needs to be done - and as admirable as working or giving to charity is, it's not big enough. ........................ That concludes my argument then. And if I could finish with a quote from Oscar Wilde's 1891 essay 'The Soul of Man under Socialism' which I think summarises my view quite succinctly: "The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease." Thanks again to my opponent for taking part. Sources: http://www.globalissues.org... http://www.enn.com... http://flag.blackened.net...