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

Roadmap: According to Con's R2 paragraph by paragraph. Good luck and since you absolutely demanded warrants and will not continue if I don't, here you go. Observations: 1) Alright I will agree and we will not be using private relief programs but there are other government run/funded programs other than the USAID. Examples are UNICEF, Peace Corps. All of these are reasonably reliable. For my point of view I will not be using USAID. UNICEF: http://www.unicefusa.org... http://www.unicefusa.org... Peace Corps (Years of experience since the Kennedy administration): http://www.peacecorps.gov... 2) My argument there is a direct attack. It is our moral obligation to do so. As the major superpower it is our responsibility to aid others in need. And yes it is utilitarianism. Like all political ideals they have their pros and cons. Deontology is also flawed. Let's use an example, political corruption: by doing all these goody acts and acting all sincere and stuff to the people promising a better life you gain all this power and put everyone else in poverty. Is that morally justified, to help the majority? Basically you gain power for yourself and how you achieved it is morally wrong because only you are benefiting not the majority. "In the case of Jim and his Indians, if Jim decides that the good demands that life be protected in the world - or at least as much right as is possible - then killing one to save nineteen is right. But for a deontologist, the preservation of our own goodness is the only thing that matters. It is more important than saving the lives of others. Thus, it is a very self-focussed (not selfish ) way of thinking. It is also absolute. This means that a deontologist should follow the rules even if doing so would bring about personal harm." -http://www3.sympatico.ca... 1) Taking action in this case is moral. Not taking action will simply allow this system to continue. I'm advocating that the U.S should take a solid stand and fight child labor. (http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...) Con's main argument here: Deontology is the key. Deontology is very ineffective because the means will often led astray from the goal. How can you judge something in the process, it's like saying you wish to build a 10 story complex and financially speaking only have barely enough. You will run into problems like a unstable foundation (like Petronas Towers causing you to pour more concrete), accidents, material damage, etc. Overall in the end it is a 8 story complex. Can you say I reached my goal of building a 10 story complex? No, and similarly here it the way you judge the end through the means is simply/majorly flawed. 2) Question: How and the process? Ends justify the means. How you achieve it is not utilitarianism. In the end everyone is equal. For deontology basically everyone is equal at first, then slowly it becomes that one person who has the most power. "Deontology talks about how you morally need to do certain things. this is about you being obligated to do what is "morally" correct. As if it is a duty for you to do... in doing this you can disrupt and deprive happiness and things from other people or most people, making this not smart and immoral at times I would say" & "Utilitarianism is a communism while Deontology is more of a dictatorship, in the hypothetical sense."-Joseph Harris, master degree in philosophy. So tell me which one promotes equality for all and brings peace? 3) Wrong idea to attack my position. The purpose of this is sending aid to child laborers will relieve them from labor to become educated. After receiving education will have basic knowledge and be able to reform their governments to how they see fit for the majority. Well, everyone has equal natural rights. The goal is to maximize the largest amounts of rights/life as possible. The more people the more ideas. Two heads are better than one. 4) Wrong idea, end based establishes that the means are justified though the end. Not relevant with omission. This has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Otherwise please elaborate, you have a 8000 characters limit. Pro's case: 1) U.S has helped in the past, refer to points above. My opponent is weak to rebuttal my reasoning. He has no logical argument to directly refute this and thus has ignored and dropped this case. If he was to refute it he would have done so like the 2nd contention. Did he? No. If you insist: "It has led to significant law reforms to criminalize such crimes against children and safeguard the rights of child victims, and has also become the source of international agreements to fight impunity within and across borders." -(http://www.unicefusa.org...) http://www.unicefusa.org... Stands had been taken to end child labor and refer to next argument. 2) I will withdraw my examples, but not my case. Warrents: http://www.fightpoverty.mmbrico.com... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... Essentially education is crucial to reforms for a better life and peace. Con's case: A point to be made: Stone and Clad source doesn't exist. I've already googled it and all the results are tile companies. 1) "If it chooses to do so, it would not violate morality" " So at the least the US can send aid" Con conceded to my point. Otherwise his rebuttal is not really an argument. And again Stone and Clad doesn't exist so his terror attacks, war, and natives are all false. Country C is obligated to aid citizens in A & B because it is the humanitarian action to do. Why it should do it I've already explained in R2. And with his immigration rebuttal we are still aiding them by providing necessary needs such as jobs and housing, so thus we are aiding them. Americans are run by the U.S and the U.S is made up of Americans, what's the difference if it's all the same thing / dependent? Government regulates the Americans and if the Americans make up the government and if the American farmers want to send food then it is considered that the government is sending food. Besides there are other alternatives to the USAID as stated above. 2) Refer to my arguments at the very top. There are other US programs. And the point of this debate, I hope, is to bring awareness and the need to send aid to children in third world countries so they can be inspired to reform their countries to how they see fit and justified. Voting issues: 1) Failed to attack my Contention 1. He only demanded warrants. 2) I've attacked all cases, so has he. 3) Failed to attack my impact both rounds: The U.S has tried attempts to reform third world countries, instead sending aids and education to children in 3rd world countries will inspire them to reform their countries to how they see fit and needed. 4) My arguments are for the good of the majority (utilitarianism) and my opponents is for deontology (selfishness). So you be the judge. 5) Con used a warrant that doesn't exist/made it up/fraud. Thank you LaLaLa for this interesting and challenging debate! Thank you for any voters/readers and for the reasons above vote Pro. And if I made any Pro/Con mistakes...I apologize ahead of time, I'm in a rush.