The amount of foreign aid given by developed countries should be increased.

If you will still support your argument that wealth is equivalent to weapons and such, then so be it: I will argue within those definitions, then. But I will take note that you still haven't stated any objections to the entailed plan given in Round 3. Side Proposition's plan is a way to increase foreign aid and give it more effectively. The burden of proof is thus on Side Opposition to point out flaws in this plan and prove that it won't work -- and unfortunately, I've seen nothing of the sort yet. This isn't restructurement, this is mere enforcement of the money we give, and that isn't hard at all. I see no reason as to why side Proposition cannot state a plan to implement their case further and ensure that it works. Therefore, Texas14, I believe the BoP is on you to clash with this plan.“To ignore the plight of undernourished people is as morally reprehensible as failing to save a child drowning in a pool because of the inconvenience of getting one’s clothes wet.” Ladies and gentlemen, this is the key theme we are dealing with today, only on a larger scale. The amount of foreign aid given by developed countries should be increased. To solve this problem, side proposition has proposed a type of aid given similarly to bilateral aid, except more enforced. It is our moral obligation to help provide for those who we have hurt in the past and we believe that it will have an overall positive outcome. This closing statement will outline the main questions of this debate, how the opposition team has failed to prove why they have won this debate, and why side proposition has won the debate.The first main question is whether it is our moral obligation to protect and help sustain countries in need, and the answer is yes, as the opponent has conceded. His only objection has been that those in developed nations should be considered first, but note that we've deprived people of human rights through history. Not only that, our plan will ensure that such aid gets there more effectively, nearly eliminating corruption.The next question is: does this really help the poor nations in need? Yes, it does. Contrary to what Texas14 states about corruption, again I point at the plan and ask: how does such a system not work? And again, I point to the argument given in Round 1:Millions of people living with HIV AIDS alive today, who without aid for anti-retroviral drugs would be dead; millions of children immunized against fatal diseases; over 30 million additional African children in schools since the year 2000; modest reduction in extreme poverty, from 58 percent to 51 percent between 1999 and 2007; 12 million orphans with the prospect of food; malaria death rates cut in half in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia over the course of just two years because of insecticide-treated bed-nets. I could go on ad infinitum. This is aid, aid that gets to the grassroots, aid that transforms open communities.It is clear that the benefits outweigh the costs. In addition to helping the poor nations another main question is: does this help developed nations? Yes, it does. I've already stated why, and if you'd like more proof, look to the Marshall Plan, a form of aid implemented by the United States that helped many broken countries in Europe in post World War II. This was foreign aid that helped countries come back, and now look at the properous nations today, who have opened international markets, specialize in products imported across the world, etc. This wasn't a plan that only helped countries in Europe, this was a plan that helped the world grow. With this example, can it truly be said that foreign aid is such a terrible thing as Texas14 states that it is, and not a blessing instead?https://en.wikipedia.org...The fourth and final question to this debate is: should the possibility of negative effects deter the rich countries from attempting to help financially troubled nations? No, it shouldn't. And Side Proposition's proposal ensures that such effects will be lessened. The opposition team has failed to complete their burden of proving why foreign aid given in this manner will lead to negative results. The arguments that Texas14 attempted to prove to you were: 1. Foreign aid hurts developed nations because developed countries are broke and the money goes to dictators as well as organizations that use the money for more sinister purposes.This point is quite flawed. Developed countries aren't necessarily broke because of foreign aid. Look at Australia, the 12th largest national economy [1], giving up $6.8 billion over the span of the years 2006 - 2013 [2] to the Pacific Islands region, and they're not broke. China spent $6.4 billion in 2013 [2], and they're not broke. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.lowyinstitute.org...Corruption doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't give foreign aid. Take an organization headed by a corrupt president, say, FIFA. Does corruption at the top constitute that the entire organization is corrupt? No. Texas14 has also stated that we're just making sinister organizations stronger, but again, Side Proposition's plan. I'm not restructuring at all, I'm simply enforcing bilateral aid given over time. Not only that, but given that your definition of foreign aid encompasses wealth in all ways, then that could constitute sending in mercenaries and the armies to deal with these organizations. 2. It hurts developing nations because Israel is a nation that can stand on it's own, it only needs allies, and the Israeli people think that they're dependent on the United States. There's a significant number of people who want to stop foreign aid here. The logic here doesn't necessarily make sense to me. I'm sorry, exactly how does foreign aid actually hurt Israel? You've stated that they're somehow dependent, and some of the population may believe so. But according to [3], Israel's getting about 3.15 billion annually. But now, look at the graphs of [4]: 291.36 USD Billion in 2013 is their GDP. So how much is U.S. aid really getting them? Roughly 1%. Even if this aid goes to the military, Israel could easily transfer a little more to the military sector and they'd be fine. 1% certainly doesn't constitute dependency. So Israel isn't dependent on the United States at all!So yes, we can let countries stand on their own. But does that have anything to do with the resolution? Does that necessarily mean that we should increase the amount of foreign aid given to developing nations, even if it isn't Israel? No! Just because Israel and a few similar countries can survive without foreign aid does not mean that foreign aid shouldn't be given to the more unforunate -- so this argument doesn't necessarily have relevance to the resolution. [3] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...;[4] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;In this debate, Side Proposition has given an argument of moral justification. We've given an argument of why and how it helps both developed and developing nations. We've shown that without foreign aid, huge consequences can exist. And finally, we've shown a plan as to how we can make foreign aid work and cast aside the doubts of the Opposition, refuting essentially all of their contentions: and that is why Side Proposition has won this debate.I look forward to the closing statement of the Opposition. P.S. Remember the BoP.