Political Conditionality and Humanitarian Aid

Thanks to Such for a great debate! In this round, I will review the key arguments in this debate, and conclude with some reasons to vote Pro.CON's CASEPremisesS1Con says that P2 is not actually an assumption. The point I am making is that in Con's first syllogism he is assuming--in both P2 and P2--that conditions are not inherently unjust. He has yet to show that they are not. S2Essentially, what Con is saying here is that his syllogisms are not arguments in themselves, but rather previews or outlines of what his arguments are. As Con writes, " these syllogisms are not meant to stand alone. They are meant to provide a framework for my case." Therefore, even if Con's syllogisms make sense, they cannot be used to negate the resolution because they presuppose that Con is winning the contentions.StrawmanMy argument regarding sovereignty was not a mischaracterization of Con's argument, rather it was a construction of my own. My C2 makes the argument about sovereignty before Con even gives his first speech; Con seems to be confusing constructive cases with strawmans. I am allowed to put forth arguments as part of a separate case which Con needs to address. It is my argument that, by their very nature, conditions violate sovereignty. Con needs to address that argument, not just dismiss it as a strawman--which it is not. I have already addressed and defended my contentions in this debate. Con's claims about strawmans are unresponsive to my arguments.OverallCon makes the argument that political conditionality is not a channel, but an integral "part of the assistance, to render it more functional." Again, Con may not pick and choose what types of conditionality he will defend--not all conditionals are designed to make aid more functional. Secondly, if political conditions render aid ineffective, then they are not neutral as Con suggests, because there is a "channel between the application of political conditions and the benefits or detriments of the humanitarian aid."Ultimately, though, Con claims that for conditionality to be unjust, the "conditions themselves must be unjust, as opposed to the fact that there are conditions." (A) The mere presence of conditions can be wrong if they violate human dignity, and (B) the conditions may be unjust if they increase suffering. Notice how all of Con's arguments rely on the fact that conditions bring about some positive benefits. Thus, if Con is unable to show that conditions do actually reap those rewards, then the conditions--insofar as they prolong or increase suffering--are unjust. Con does rely on consequentialist logic to justify the reasons for and benefits of utility; notice how Con is always talking about how conditions impact the efficacy of aid. C1: Not UnjustI would argue that Con's argument that humanitarian assistance does not arise out of concerns for our most basic rights is faulty.If we grant that the right to life--our most basic right--is endangered in a humanitarian crisis, assistance is necessary, and constitutes a provision of those rights. As I noted earlier, if I am starving to death due to a famine, I do not need to earn food, since I have an unalienable right to my life, and by extension, to basic sustenance needed to sustain my life. Therefore, people do not need to earn humanitarian assistance, because it is essential to maintain life. Also, such assistance is key to meeting our most basic needs [1], such as food, water, shelter, etc. Without these needs, it is hard if not impossible to access other unalienable rights. It is hard for me to engage in self-determination, when I have no water to drink and am exposed to the elements. I am focused merely on survival, with little opportunity to steer the course of my own existence. Therefore, insofar as Con agrees that "that basic, unalienable rights should not need to be earned," and insofar as we acknowledge that life is an unalienable right, we agree that humanitarian assistance, which is often essential to life, should not need to be earned. Let's display this logic as follows:1. Humanitarian disasters (war, natural disasters, disease epidemics, etc) threaten lives2. I am entitled to that which I need to maintain my right to life3. I am entitled to humanitarian assistanceRecall what Con said last round: "The right to life does supercede superficial ideological goals."Distinctions could be made on the basis of urgency assessments, for example. There need not be conditions to make such triage calls.C2: Historically JustLet's keep this in mind as the round continues. But, moreover, Con's response to my prisoner example is inadequate. He says he wants to justly maximize consequences--so what constitutes "just?" I consider imperialistic conditions to be unjust, yet Con seems to think that such conditions are just. So, Con leaves us with no idea of what he means by "just" except for the fact that he wishes to make aid effective. So, it seems under that paradigm, a nation could impose unjust conditions (since Con's criteria for justness is vague) and justify those conditions by claiming they were net beneficial. In that case, the conditions are still unjust.Con agrees that "perhaps, [in Pro's World] one that can functionally maintain security and peaceful relations." If that is so, then why is geopolitical stability a unique piece of offense for Con? Remember, Pro's world is merely against political conditions on aid, and does not preclude diplomacy or other avenues of maintaining stability. Since Con has no evidence showing that conditions make the world any more stable than the world would be without them.Con admits that he is unsure if conditions are the most moral way to ensure the proper distribution of aid. He also admits that security details for aid convoys would reap some positive benefits by ensuring the safety of aid organizations. But, keep in mind my world still allows for other types of solutions to humanitarian crises, not just aid. Peacekeeping forces oftentimes, in tandem with unconditional aid, would work in many cases, I think, largely because it would work to minimize the civil strife, while simultaneously ensuring safe aid disbursement. Ultimately though, this reaches beyond the scope of the debate. Suffice it to say that Con's argument about civil strife does not necessarily apply, and moreover, Con has failed to show that conditionality actually improve the effectiveness of aid in unstable regions.Con's argument here is ridiculous. If a government "has already turned on its people in light of civil strife" then it seems that humanitarian aid isn't the cause of the government turning on its people, because that turn has already occurred. Again, Con offers no evidence that shows that conditions actually work to make aid more effective. Con says that aid prolonged conflicts, but why does conditional aid not prolong conflicts? Con never explains. Con's evidence is against aid in general, and can be turned to rebut Con's case just as much as my own. It's non-unique.If the right to life supersedes ideology, then it would be immorally to violate that right to maximize less important ideologies. It is neo-colonial to impose foreign ethical systems on nations. Foreign ideologies are pushed onto recipient nations via conditionality--that's wrong.Con drops that there is an unfair power dynamic between the donor and recipient. This reinforces my argument that there is oftentimes little meaningful choice open to recipients.General UtilityCon drops all of these points. Con may not attempt to rebut these points next round as any such points would be new arguments, and I would have no chance to respond to those new arguments. Therefore, again, Con may not rebut these points because it is against the rules and would be unfair to me. Extend all of the following points:1. Conditionality Overwhelms Recipients - conditions overwhelm recipient nations rendering conditions ineffective as recipients are unable to enforce/implement them.2. Conditionality Backfires: NGOs - conditions make it harder for NGOs to operate, often cause retaliations against them3. Little Information - donors fail to acquire information needed to craft effective conditions4. Conditionality Interferes with Saving lives - conditions prioritize ideology over concrete moral rights5. Conditionality Backfires: Aid Shocks - conditions increase violence in nations6. Conditions create unclear thresholds that donors cannot analyzeVOTING ISSUES1. Consequentialism Con conveniently summarizes his argument as follows: "[conditions] are the most moral (just) way of rendering humanitarian aid successful." This is false, as all of my dropped utility arguments show (and my ownership arguments). In fact, conditionality increases violence an retaliatory acts, and are highly ineffective. 2. Rights Con says: "that basic, unalienable rights should not need to be earned." The right to life is unalienable, and should not need to be earned. Insofar as conditions interfere with saving lives, they violated people's basic rights and are immoral. 3. Human Dignity By using people as bartering chips, conditions wrongly treat people as objects--a flagrant, immoral violation of human dignity. 4. Other Sovereignty, the risk of sliding into autocracy, and Con's total failure to provide sufficient evidence as to the efficacy of conditionality are all reasons to vote Pro. Conditions are inherently wrong, they produce harmful consequences, and failing to increase the efficacy of aid. Thus, I ask you to VOTE PRO! Thank you.SOURCEhttp://en.wikipedia.org...