The United States ought to focus on domestic aid, rather than foreign aid.

DefinitionsAid and FocusThe definitions I have provided are the primary definitions provided by merriam webster. The judges will have to decided which definitions they choose to accept. The Role of GovernmentMany public services could be privatized today without violating the constitution. No where does the constitution explicitly state that education, proper medical care, and infrastructure will be provided by government, only that those things cannot be denied of the people. The body providing it is immaterial. The true answer to the question of the role of government and social programs is indeed the subject of lengthy debate. For the purpose of this topic, judges should keep both interpretations in mind. Con's final rebuttals, and closing remarks of Pros case. A. Reality Check on technologyThis entire point has very little relevancy to the availableness of proper medical techonology. The amount of patents produced in America yearly doesn't mean anything if our infant mortality rate is high. A focus on domestic aid would increase the availability of advanced medical technology, thus improving the American standard of living. The comparison of U. S. patents produced annually and the level of average technological development is totally absurd. B. Reality Check on EducationMy opponent means to assert that being below average is acceptable. This is not true. As a world superpower, the US should strive to ensure that its citizens are among the most educated in the world, if not the most educated in the world. You can't simply say, "we're below average, so that acceptable, because were close to average. " You have to start funding the education of the future of your country, to ensure that its future citizens are bright enough to create a stable economy, and a favorable government. The attitude Con would have you take is to allow the US to fade into the background, and become some paltry country with a sub-par economy and citizens with sub-par education, when the US could thrive and lead the world, thus having larger net benefits for foreign aid. C. Improving InfrastructureIf this point were true, then why would the American Society of Civil Engineers be campaigning for increased spending on infrastructure? This rebuttal makes no sense! I have shown that our failing infrastructure will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars. This rebuttal in no way discredits this point. D. "Simply put, this is thinly disguised Trickle Down Theory, that giving money to the rich will somehow help the poor. In reality, the rich keep the money and the poor never see much it ever again, while they continue to starve. Has mass consumerism in North America and Europe lifted Africa and South America out of poverty? No. "This is a false comparison. Totally 100% false. The reason the rish keep money in trickle down economics is because they save the cash. Developmental aid creates a stronger country, and economy. With a stronger economy, the government recieves more tax revenue. With abundant tax revenue, the government can spend more money on foreign aid. Therefore domestic aid ultimately helps foreign aid. SummaryCon fails to properly rebut any of my arguments. Therefore, I forward them all, as they are all DROPPED. As the coming round is the final round, my opponent may not attempt to create new rebuttals against these points. In order for the con to win, he must prove that the net benefits of foreign aid outweigh all of the net benefits I have enumerated. On my own rebuttals(A)"My figures come from detailed and official government records. I can not be the one to blame if the Pro is incapable of noticing my perfectly visible “sources” section. "To clarify, what I meant was that though you may have listed sources, you did not cite them in such a way so that readers and myself can see what statistics are backed up by what sources, making it difficult to discern what is fact, and what is not; this casts doubt on much of your argument. (B)"Since whichever side that provides the most net benefit wins, CON wins this point as PRO concedes that developing the outside world would be more efficient, and thus that spending money outside the Unites Stares rather than inside would generate more net benefit. "This is a purposeful misinterpratation of my argument AKA Strawman fallacy. My opponent is attempting to misconstrue my words in order to make it seem that I agree that foreign aid has higher net benefits. To clarify, take this example. The US has 1,000$ to spend in aid. They can choose foreign or domestic. If they chose foreign, they would achieve twice as much development as domestic. This may seem better, but it isn't in the long run. Let's say instead, they spend it domestically. The countrys economy grows much stronger, and the next time spending time comes around, they have 2,000$, whereas in the first case, the next year the US would still only have 1,000$ or even less. Now the US can spend 1,000 on both. The next year, the US could psend 2,000 on both. By the third year, the US would have already spent more on foreign aid in dollars than it would have it had focused instead on foreign aid. (C)"The United States is already developed enough to properly give whatever aid it choses to give. "Cross reference this with my entire point I argument. The US is in major need of development. (D)"False, the Pro stated itself “the resolution therefore is a defense of status quo”. If one side choses the Status Quo as it’s plan, it is the burden of the opposition to provide a counter-plan. The Con counter-plan to the Pro’s Status Quo is to make a point of showing how more net benefit could be achieved by increasing foreign aid. In doing so, it is my responsibility to show where the funding of such money would come from. A plan is the only logical choice of action in a “Ought to” or “Should” debate. "I'm sorry friend but this isn't national forensics league. Status Quo does not mean this is a policy debate, nor does it mean that I had chosen a plan. If this was a policy debate, I would have indicated that in R1 when I stated the rules of this debate. Status Quo is latin for the existing state of affairs. (E)"Just in case this need clarifying, my point is to demonstrate how the Con plan generates a superior amount of money available for aid spending, and that such money can bring about a huge gain in net benefit, both domestically and foreign, whereas the Pro only provides small benefit in a purely domestic setting. The Con plan assumes that the majority will be spent on foreign aid. "Cons plan provides more money to foreign aid only in the long run. Furthermore, NO PART of the US constitution states that we have a duty to provide aid to other countries. The US has been verymuch so an isolationist country for many parts of its history. Conclusion1. Pro shows that domestic aid has much greater long-term effects than foreign aid.2. Con fails to sufficiently rebut any part of Pros case.3. Con attempts to redefine a regular DDO debate into a NFL policy debate, even though the rules set out in R1 that were accepted by the con never stated that a plan was called for.4. Con fails to properly format his citations so that readers can see which sources back up which statements and which statements are the opinion of Con.