The World Owes It to Africa to Help Them.

Greetings. I will begin my argument by distinguishing what my opponent affirms in the resolution by using the word "owes." An online dictionary defines this term as: to be under obligation to pay or repay, or to be indebted to [1]. In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that we - the United States + Europe - have an obligation to help Africa financially via monetary means (money). On the other hand, I will establish why we do not have a moral obligation to aid Africa. Pro first explains that the economic turmoil in Africa is a "direct result" of European and American exploitation. However, Pro never details the reasoning behind this claim. She mentions authoritarian rule, but makes no mention of the authoritarian rule as established by the various African governments themselves. Therefore, I can easily attack this claim already, but I'll give Pro the chance to explain herself before dismantling this weak argument. One reason this is a potentially weak argument is the fact that Africa has a great role in its own oppression. Another reason is the fact that Africa is obviously NOT the only place to have ever been exploited. The most powerful nations in the world have all at some point in time been under extreme oppression, including the United States. Of course one logical argument for the side of the Con is to point out that often times countries can - and maybe should - be responsible for bringing themselves out of bad situations. To claim this would be impossible feat would be ignorant; this type of turn-around has happened all throughout history. An additional argument for the Con would be to pose the question as to why the citizens of today's government should be held responsible for the actions of our ancestors. If Pro wants "us" to pay, this "us" she speaks of obviously refers to the government. Tax payers fund the government, and many citizens in this economic crisis are all struggling to keep their own families afloat. Pro must detail why average tax payers should be FORCED to have their money aid people overseas, as the government doesn't say that we should help the people in Africa if we can, but rather that we OWE it to Africa (which is a pretty direct claim). Let me take this opportunity to point out that the U.S. itself is in TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. If we ourselves are in debt, how and why can we afford to significantly aid the African people? Shouldn't this be an issue of private charity? Pro writes, "Since European colonialism Africa has been exploited and manipulated." This is true, but like I said, a lot of it was self-contained. This is not unusual. Consider a place like Columbia where one of its own - Pablo Escobar - exploited the people of his nation for his own personal gain. Similarly, many Africans in power choose to exploit their own people. In that case, the U.S. doesn't "owe" Africa anything. It's just a sad situation. Moreover, Pro points out that Africa never recovered after we "abandoned" it. The truth is that Africa has various resources which it can use to fuel the economy. The key is giving them the opportunity and know-how to do it, and while it may be important, it may not be because *we* OWE it to them. The key term in this resolution is "owe" after-all. Again, many nations have been turned upside down and without the luxury of receiving any type of reparation such as the ones Germany paid post WWI. I am not arguing that the people in Africa should not be helped. However, I am negating the notion that we OWE it to Africa to help them. In other words, that it is a moral absolute. I will argue this ideology further once my opponent has posted a rebuttal. Good luck! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...