The U.S should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries.

Roadmap: Observations (clarifications), con's case, pro case 1) The resolution states that the US is the actor. Merriam-Webster defines United States as a "country North America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic. " Notice the last part signifies that the Untied States is a government. Thus, the aid must come from the a government entity as per the text of the resolution. As stated before USAID is the current entity for providing aid and as such will be the source of the aid in this debate. Private relief aids don't satisfy the US condition of the resolution (This would not be the case for "American's should send aid to forced child laborers in third world countries). Also, hypothetical organizations are impossible to debate as every organization will have advantages and disadvantages. I can't know these for an organization that doesn't exist. 2)My opponent doesn't mention my interpretation of should so it still stands. He also claims that it is the US's moral obligation to help those in need because it is a great power. He's warrant for this is that we need to be doing what is the best for the greatest good. This type of morality is known as Utilitarianism and basically states that the end justifies the means. Utilitarianism is flawed; prefer deontology (morality based on the means not the ends) 1)Morality is binary. This means that an action can only be moral or immoral. No action can be somewhat moral. Deontology gives a clear view as to what is and isn't moral, and thus serves as an effective guide to action. 2)Ends based morality eventually becomes Deontology. All ends based morality requires that all people are equal, yet they all conclude that some can be sacrificed for the benefit of others. However, the fact that people can be sacrificed means that those people's rights don't matter, therefore making everybody unequal. The only way to ensure that all people are equal is to use deontology. 3)Ends based morality usually focuses on maximizing life, however this serves no purpose if nobody has any rights. Keeping innocent people in cages and providing necessities keeps them alive, but it is definitely not a moral action. 4)Ends based morality establishes that actions and omissions are morally equivalent. For example lets say person A kills person B, and Person C is a bystander. Under Ends based morality he is responsible for person Bs death. However this cannot be true. If Person A were not there than the murder would not have happened, and if Person C were not there than it would have. Thus Person A is the only one responsible for the murder. Opponent's case: C1) My opponent still lacks warrants to support his claims that the US can help or has helped. He merely claims that it does. He also claims without warrant that sending aid will lead to reform. I understand that my opponent wants a debate based on logic not the opinion of someone else, but that is no excuse to not provide empirical evidence that supports one's argument. In order for for this contention to have an value in this debate my opponent needs to provide empirical evidence that USAID has worked in the past and lead to reform. Insofar as he has not done this, you cannot look to this contention. C2) Even if Silva had not been educated by the Brazilian government, she was not educated by the US government. There is a major difference between a "private" school funded in another country and a country sending education to third world countries. She still goes to a school in Brazil that was not set up by the US government in order to educate a poor community. Instead the school was set up by a church to teach Christianity to Brazilians. As for Chavez, I said the example follows the same logic: He was an American Educated in America, his education was not provided by another country's aid. Thus as I said before you can turn this argument as it provides a reason for the US to not send aid. Now on to my case: C1) "Country C will still have to protect citizens A & B because citizens from A & B will immigrate to C and C has more resources than A & B thus the economy of C is stronger. Proven example: U. S in WW1 and WW2. " If the citizens immigrate, that is a different story and would be the same as if the child laborers come to the US. In this case, we aren't sending aid to them. My argument claims that C does not morally have to go into A and B and provide protection to the citizens of those countries. If it chooses to do so, it would not violate morality unless this act will result in harm to the citizens of A. So at the least the US can send aid and you can still vote con (based of my analysis of the word should). However, there is harm to the US when we send aid. Extend Stone and Clad, who explain that the natives see the United States as stealing local jobs. This increases the chance of terrorist attacks and/or a declaration of war. All my opponent says to this is that USAID doesn't steal jobs. I never claim that it does, the card states that the locals see it as stealing jobs. Insofar as sending USAID can result in harm to US citizens, the US has a moral obligation to not send aid. As for my opponent's suggestion of sending things such as food, if US farmers want to send food they can that is there choice. However, this isn't the US sending aid, it is AMERICANS sending aid and that makes the difference in this debate. So, there is no reason why farmers can't send food, while the US doesn't send aid. This way we gain the advantage of soft power and avoid the harms of sending USAID. C2) I have already explained why USAID is the only option for this debate as it is the only organization that stays true to the resolution and allows for a fair debate. If we change USAID, that is the same as creating a new organization. There is no way to know what new problems what would occur after the changes are made. So the point that USAID is ineffective is still valid.