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

RebutalsI. DefinitionsAidAll my definitions come from the same English Dictionary, as stated in my previous argument. The Pro is the one that is trying to spin the interpretation of the terms to create more favorable conditions for his/her argument.1. Direct interpretation“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”The Con argument that the Constitution does not guarantee infrastructure, welfare and development is wrong. It is directly stated in the constitution that government should provide for its citizens. Imagine if the government left bridges to collapse under the pretense that it was “not their problem”. We would definitely disagree. Imagine if illiteracy ran rampant and less than 30% of all people were educated at even a middle school level. “Not my problem,” says the government. It is their problem, it is their responsibility. Anything short is pure folly. The government must provide for development and welfare as one of its basic requirements because, at the very lest, that is what the people of America currently interpret it to be, as justifed by current policy and voting patterns2. The purpose of the ConstitutionWhile the Constitution does provide for “general welfare”, the Constitution as a whole is very vague. This is for a very good reason. The Constitution is not the set of laws that govern the country1. Shocking! No, the Constitution is the set of laws that govern the powers of government. Originally it was created in order to ensure that people’s rights would not be infringed by an overbearing government. This is a simple and effective method of preventing autocracy and maintaining democracy.The Constitution does NOT determine policy. It does not enumerate the various responsibilities of government and the services it provides to the people. There is absolutely no mention of any of the departments of state in the Constitution. Since such things are not enumerated in this all-important document, does that mean we should interpret it as:Since there is nothing in the Constitution about a law against murder, I can legally kill whoever I want!Since there is nothing in the Constitution about driving regulations, I can ignore all traffic law and drive any vehicle regardless of whether I have a permit or not and regardless of my age, be it 10 years old, 30 years old, or 90 years old.The Pro’s logic is fundamentally flawed because the Pro is forcing an interpretation of the Constitution that is not in accordance with reality.Conclusion to DefinitionsThus, since aid means free gift, and since the vast majority of development is basic right and not charity to citizens, it is proved though the analysis of government outlays that only $30 billion dollars of any aid is delivered by the Status Quo, and not the entire federal budget.As for the Pro claim that my facts are not sourced, that is a simple lie, as my sources are in fact present in my “sources” section.II. Arguments1. Pro Argument One: America need development.A. Reality Check on technologyAmerica is not falling behind in technology. In fact the opposite is true. America is at the very top2. The country that generated the greatest number of patents per year is the United States3, and every year and number of patents submitted increases substantially without fail.The US is far ahead, and extra donations to technology wouldn’t provide nearly as much benefit as giving direct help to the technologically under-developed world.B. Reality Check on EducationThe United States education system performs at average levels and sometimes above average, compared to developed countries. The United States is far ahead when compared to all countries4. The Pro used a graph to try to demonstrate the US being behind, but this graph places the US and about average, in only one category out of many to compare, and against the very best of developed countries.The Pro tries to make a point of saying that “US is also behind smaller, less developed countries, like South Korea, Slovenia, Singapore, Ireland, Israel, and Cuba”. South Korea and Singapore are amongst the top developed and richest countries in the world. South Korean infrastructure and education is the cream of the world. Slovenia, Ireland and Israel are European developed countries that benefit from socialist-inspired heavy government investment in public education and other public services. Cuba, one of the world’s few remaining communist states, while underdeveloped in infrastructure, has placed a huge emphasis on education and has one of the highest per-capita degree ownerships in the world making it one of the most educated places on the planet. If there are types of not-so-small, not-so-underdeveloped, way-advanced-in-education countries that the US can be compared to on an equal basis, I would say the US is in a pretty fair condition.The real places that need education are the impoverished masses of South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In terms of net benefits, creating an education where there once was none > improving and already satisfactory education.C. Improving InfrastructureInfrastructure always needs improvement. This is because the government has purposefully chosen roads that decay quite quickly over roads that last. This is done for economic reasons (more people to hire) and meteorological reasons5.There currently are methods of making roads that last for decades, but we simply chose not to implement such methods.Infrastructure is crumbling, because its designed to crumble.Rather, money should be sent to places that have no infrastructure at all to speak of, such as places in Africa where people depend on wells dug in the ground with shovels for drinking water.2. Pro agument Two: spending on America helps the worldIn my previous argument I’ve already given reasons as to why this is a fallacy.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.Spending money at home does not necessitate that the benefit will flow outwards abroad.III. Counter-Rebutals“fails to properly cite his sources”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.“Just because other parts of the world can be developed more efficiently than the USA, does not mean that we should prioritize their development.”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.“a more developed United States can more efficiently provide foreign aid”The United States is already developed enough to properly give whatever aid it choses to give.“this isn't a policy debate”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.“If con means to spend on foreign and domestic equally, then he violates all definitions of focus that have been given, and therefore invalidates his argument.”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.More importantly, the Pro’s attack on the wording of an argument that would otherwise be clear demonstrates that the Pro was unable to attack the heart of the Con argument. The Pro could not provide counter arguments against any part of the Con plan, and thus judges should interpret the above statement as a concession to the validity of the Con’s plan.ConclusionPro plan: $30 billion in aid v.s. Con plan $200 billion in aid.To make clear: The Con can do everything the Pro wants to do, and much more. The Con clearly provides more net benefit.VOTE CONSources:1.http://constitutionality.us...2. http://www.thetoptens.com...3. http://www.mapsofworld.com...4. http://www.edweek.org...5. http://www.straightdope.com...