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

It"s my first time, so please don"t crush me :P That being said, let"s head onto the definitions. We define foreign aid as wealth that is given from one country to another, and we define developed countries to be countries with a sustainable economy and high human development. Now that we"re finished the definitions, let"s go ahead into the arguments. During the course of this debate, I will be presenting three main arguments for Side Proposition. Firstly, that developed countries have a moral obligation to help the developing countries. Secondly, providing aid to poor countries will allow a link/agreement between the two, in which both nations will benefit. Finally, I will propose a model that will ensure that the problems of corruption and the embezzlement of aid money are eradicated and that aid money goes to the right hands at the right times. We will now delve into the first two arguments for Side Proposition, and during the 3rd round, we"ll discuss my proposition, and finally, we"ll finish with my closing statement. Do we have a moral obligation to help the poor? The answer is a resounding yes. Without my argument needing to cater to emotion, I ask you to understand that it is a simple truth that as humans, we want to help each other. It"s in human nature " we see the homeless and we take pity on them. Side opposition may take this argument to say that we should be helping the homeless of developed nations instead, but note that developed countries have a safety net. Developing countries do not. It is also important to note that many of the poor in developing nations do not have the basic human rights that many in developed nations take for granted. We"ll define human rights as those defined in the link below: . http://www.un.org... Article 22 in the link states: "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. " Social security. That"s something that many in developing countries simply don"t have, given their poverty levels. Because I might not have enough characters left, I will ask the gentle reader to see Article 26 that declares that education is a right. Yet many in developing countries cannot afford it, and thus, they are deprived of this right as well. I pose the question to Side Opposition: Given that men, women, and children in developing nations are being subjected to the deprivation of human rights and inequality, as well as many issues that are well-known, such as poverty, scarcity of food and resources, as well as the corruption and lack of order due to conflict, do we truly not have a moral obligation to help these people? Furthermore, if nations face unforeseeable calamities or natural disasters, do we not have a moral obligation to give aid to those whose fault it is not? I leave it to Side Opposition to clash with this argument. My second argument is also quite simple. Providing aid to poor countries allows a link/agreement between the two in which both nations benefit. At first glance, the gentle reader may think that aid is sent to developing nations to the benefit of solely the developing nation, and that this argument is designed to exploit the developing nation. However, this is far from the truth. For this argument, I will use some of the points in . http://www.foreignpolicyi.org..., as it proves points in a way that is hard to articulate better. Note that foreign aid is not only a way to send help to the impoverished in the worst conditions, but that it also promotes the security of developed nations by helping to fight the causes of terrorism, stabilizing weak states, and promoting regional security as well as global stability. An example is Colombia, where in 2001, it was about to "collapse in the face of a powerful narco-insurgency. With nearly $8.6 billion (see link above), from the United States economic and military aid, the threat has diminished and democracy thrives. Of course, this helped Colombia " but it also helped the United States. U. S. trade has tripled since 2000 to $12 billion in 2011, and will grow further now that the United States-Columbia free-trade agreement has been enacted. As a result, we also see that aid promotes prosperity and self-reliance by encouraging economic development and that it opens international markets. Can Side Opposition truly say that aid has not helped and will continue to help as we give more? Colombia is merely one example. South Korea is also an example of international aid that has been extremely successful, transforming the former receiving nation into a donor itself. In summation for this argument, giving aid to developing nations will allow for the opening of international markets and will help the developed nations receive more resources, which allows the developed nations to boost the economy further and give even more aid in a reinforcing cycle, while the developed nation will boost their living standards with aid. Thank you. I look forward to hearing Side Opposition"s response and clash.