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

Ok so this debate is going to come down to my two observations. Let's start with 2) morality. Right here, in my opponents response he makes a fatal error. Extend where he states that Deontology is flawed. Remember I gave four reasons why utilitarianism is flawed 1. Morality is binary. This means that an action can only be moral or immoral. No action can be somewhat moral. Deontology gives a clear view as to what is and isn't moral, and thus serves as an effective guide to action. My opponent doesn't respond to this argument, he only states that Taking action will be moral. However, this argument is that we can't use utilitarianism because we wouldn't say that killing 6 people is more moral than killing seven. With deontology we can say that neither act is moral, because the act of killing is immoral. 2. Ends based morality eventually becomes Deontology. All ends based morality requires that all people are equal, yet they all conclude that some can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. However, the fact that people can be sacrificed means that those people's rights don't matter, therefore making everybody unequal. The only way to ensure that all people are equal is to use deontology. Ok so lets think about it we have an option to kill one to save many. Utilitarianism says everyone has to be equal and that it would be ok to kill the one. However, this means that the one had a lesser right to life than the many. Also, you can't say that the group had a combined right to life that was greater. If the whole group had minor headaches, we wouldn't say the group is having a migraine. So, we can't add up individual rights or situations and say that the total is that of the groups. So to make sure that everyone is equal we have to say that killing is always wrong. But wait by not acting, aren't we killing the many? No lets look at reason 4 (I'll come back to three, doing 4 first for logical reasons). Under utilitarianism we would say we are killing the many because it makes no distinction between act and omission. However, this is obviously false. Consider my previous example, person A kills person B, and Person C is a bystander. Under Ends based morality he (person C) is responsible for person Bs death. However this cannot be true. If Person A were not there than the murder would not have happened, and if Person C were not there than it would have. Thus Person A is the only one responsible for the murder. My opponent's form of morality says that both person B and C are responsible, which clearly isn't the case. So by not acting we would not be killing the many. 3) Again, this is an attack on Utilitarianism not a direct attack on opponents case. Basically, Utilitarianism says that it would be moral to put people in cages and provide necessities to keep them alive. This can never be considered moral so don't look at Utilitarianism. But now we have a problem right? We can't use utilitarianism because it's flawed and we can't use deontology because it's flawed. Yet, these are the only ways to test if an action is moral or immoral (we either look at the action and determine if it is moral regardless of the end result (deontology) or we look at the end result to determine if an action is moral (Utilitarianism)). So we can never know when an action is moral or immoral as we can't use a flawed system of morality. Recall my analysis on should, which is dropped yet again. If there is no moral obligation to send aid, then you vote con (even if it is permissible or beneficial to send aid), because my opponent had a burden to prove a moral obligation. Because we can't prove anything as far as morality is concerned, then he can never meet this burden, and I win the round. Ok so now I am clearly wining the round from a moral standpoint. On to my observation 1. my opponent waits till the end of the round to provide another government agency other than USAID. However this is highly abusive as I've spent the last two rounds attacking USAID (because my opponent provided no other alternative to my suggestion or even his own agency in his original case), and now at the end of the round he provides agencies that link out of all disadvantages I've provided. So either vote him down (aka vote con) for being unfair and making it impossible for me to make adequate arguments/ allowing me to spend a lot of time making an argument that doesn't matter (but only at the end) or don't use his new examples as they have been provided too late in the round. If this is the case, then he will loose as it is very clear that USAID is ineffective. As for Stone and Clad being real: James C. Clad is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Roger D. Stone is a Senior Fellow at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington. (Google is good, except when it comes to debate research, you have to dig a little bit deeper). So there is no reason to send ineffective Aid. Also, remember Aid will hurt US citizens as a result of the natives interpreting the help as americans taking their jobs, which leads to hostility towards the US. This was dropped. Voters: 1) My opponent has failed to prove a moral obligation, a burden established in my first case. 2) My opponent is being abusive by bringing up crucial information too late in the round 3) USAID is ineffective and there is no reason to send ineffective aid 4) It will backfire and hurt the United states, which even if i am wrong when I say that we don't have to help other countries. It is still logical to say that the government shouldn't harm its own people to help people in a foreign nation because it needs its people to exist. 5) My opponent has given up in actually trying to make logical arguments and has resorted to appealing to ethos (aka calling deontology selfish- how could something that protects individual's rights be selfish?). 6) My opponent did only inadequate research in trying to find my source of Stone and Clad and used his inability to research as a reason to vote for him. http://www.jstor.org...- This is from Jstor, anything on this site is credible and full access is usually obtained through a college, I got the cards from another site but they are from this book.