Political Conditionality and Humanitarian Aid

Thank you Bsh1, likewise, for this debate.I will now present my defense.PREMISES, REBUTTALS Syllogism 1P2 is not actually an assumption, but rather, an extension of P1 -- if P1 were true, then P2 is also true. It logically follows that conditions must be unjust, rather than the fact that there must be conditions for humanitarian aid to be unjust, and if that were the case, then conditions are not necessarily unjust.However, these syllogisms are not meant to stand alone. They are meant to provide a framework for my case -- a simple statement that sums what my argument is. To hold my position, I must be asserting what those syllogisms present. The rest of my argument does not stand on its own, but is instead evidence and support for the syllogisms I begin with, so they are not left as assumptions, but rather, statements that logically follow in consideration of the provided proof.Syllogism 2It is true that P1 is an extension of the first syllogism. This is because my argument is cohesive. In other words:Syllogism 1 indicates what my position in the argument is.Syllogism 2 is why I hold that position within the argument.The conclusions that follow are what I defend within the remainder of my argument, and this is why they're labelled "Arguments for C1" and "Arguments for C2."It logically follows that if something isn't necessarily unjust, and it hasn't been unjust historically, then it isn't unjust in general, although there may be exceptions (as there are exceptions to everything). This is the basis of scientific perspectives and reasonable beliefs. In other words:If: A (as a thing) can be B (as a characteristic).And: A is usually B.Then (Functionally): A is B.On Dismissing Premises on the OwnOnce again, my opponent's argument is a Strawman:"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted." [1] In the first attempt to present a Strawman argument, Pro asserted that defending political conditionality on humanitarian aid is tantamount to defending an attack on liberty and sovereignty. Here is an example of a Strawman argument:"(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.(2) Three does not equal one. Therefore:(3) Trinitarianism is false. This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth." [1]Likewise, Pro's initial argument was an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents political conditionality (by assuming that it is a means to force a desired end without compensation or freedom), its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of political conditionality, and its conclusion states that political conditionality is unjust.In this incarnation of a strawman argument, Pro oversimplifies my argument rather than misrepresents it. In this case, Pro assessed an entire argument, disregarded its support, and asserted that it, alone and removed from its support, is an argument based on assumptions. This is fallacious. OverallI impress upon the judges that the syllogisms are important to contextualize my arguments. The recurring themes in my arguments are there to support the fact that generally, political conditions on humanitarian aid are just, and therefore, placing them is also just. This does not necessarily assert a consequentialist stance, as there is no channel between the application of political conditions and the benefits or detriments of the humanitarian aid that frames those conditions. In other words, consequentialism asserts that the consequences of an act is morally justified by the outcome of that act. In other words, if there were a country ruled by a corrupt regime, a consequentialist might defend warring with the country and killing enough of its military, and even civilians, to bring the regime to its knees and ends its corruption. So, the objective is to end corruption, the channel in that example is war. However, in the case of providing humanitarian assistance, political conditions aren't a channel. They are part of the assistance, to render it more functional. They, in and of themselves, are neutral, and are unjust based on the nature of what they impose on a country receiving assistance.Humanitarian assistance is a failure if it does not actually assist a country. Therefore, something that increases the benefit of that assistance is not utilitarian, per se -- it is logical.CONTENTION ONE: Conditionality is not Necessarily Unjust, RebuttalsThere seems to be an assumption in Pro's rebuttal that earning something implies that one deserves the consequences of not earning it before one has even attempted to earn it. I made no indication of this. I agree with Pro's assertion that basic, unalienable rights should not need to be earned. However, humanitarian assistance is not a provision of those rights, which include: Right to self-determination Right to liberty Right to due process of law Right to freedom of movement Right to freedom of thought Right to freedom of religion Right to freedom of expression Right to peaceably assemble Right to freedom of association[2] However, the ability to earn assistance when needed is an unalienable right -- it is the right to self-determination. Therefore, my assertions that support my argument that conditionality is not necessarily unjust stand.Pro also asserts that distinctions can be made for who receives aid without conditions, but gives no examples. Accordingly, this is the logical fallacy "Argument by Assertion," or a blind assertion. [3]CONTENTION TWO: Conditions Have Been Just, RebuttalsPro indicates that I have made no connection between conditions improving the benefit and/or success of humanitarian aid and justice. Pro compared this with a mysterious benefit or expediency to killing prisoners as opposed to granting them due process. However, at the close of my argument, titled "The Power of Conditionality," I explained how conditions are the most moral (just) way of rendering humanitarian aid successful. I must impress upon Pro and the judges that I have not rendered a series of arguments in one round, but rather, entire arguments, with layers of support.Microanalysis- I never indicated that conditions are necessary to maintain security and peaceful relations, but that they are a way to do so, and have been used to do so. I know nothing of Pro's world, and Pro's proposed world is largely irrelevant to this debate. Is that a world without political conditions for humanitarian aid? That is an interesting world indeed, and perhaps, one that can functionally maintain security and peaceful relations. However, this does not detract from the fact that political conditions that ensure security and peaceful relations are just.- Security for humanitarian convoys are likely effective in protecting humanitarian organizations in an area with civil strife, but it does nothing for the civilians in the country with the strife that now need humanitarian aid to fill gaps in needs. Are political conditions the most moral way to approach this problem? I do not know, and I assert that Pro doesn't, either, but that does nothing to detract from the fact that political conditions that protect humanitarian organizations and civilians from countries suffering from civil strife are just.- In terms of the failings of humanitarian aid due to governments turning against their own people in light of humanitarian aid, this is most often committed by a government that has already turned on its people in light of civil strife. Examples include the Bosnian crisis [4], the Darfur crisis [5], and most notably, the current civil war in Syria. Also, humanitarian aid is meant to be temporary, leading to steps taken, almost exclusively in the form of political conditions, to ensure that the aid is beneficial in the long term, rather than something that can exacerbate a continuous problem. A serious question that threatens the very practice of providing humanitarian aid altogether is whether it actually prolongs wars and increases suffering:"All too frequently, according to Polman, the result is not what it says in the charity brochures. She cites a damning catalogue of examples from Biafra to Darfur, and including the Ethiopian famine, in which humanitarian aid has helped prolong wars, or rewarded the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide rather than the victims." [6]- The right to life does supercede superficial ideological goals. However, countries do not receive humanitarian aid due to superficial ideologies. They sometimes receive them due to damning domestic policy, which requires contingency to correct.- It is not part of a neo-colonial paradigm to instigate a change in a situation that initially necessitated humanitarian aid as part and parcel to that aid.- Pro has made no case whatsoever for how political conditions are advantageous to any one side.I have no more room for argumentation.1. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://rationalwiki.org...4. http://www.refworld.org...5. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu...6. http://www.theguardian.com...