Political Conditionality and Humanitarian Aid

Thank you, Bsh1, for this debate. In this final round, I will render my final rebuttals and final focus.PRO'S CASEPro continues to assert that my arguments are based on the assumption that conditions are not inherently unjust, and that they must be unjust by the nature of what those conditions are, rather than simply unjust because they're conditions. This is a specious argument. What if a condition were, "the humanitarian aid must be applied to the crisis for which it was provided, rather than for profit or the growth of a regime"? Surely, although it is political in nature, that is not an unjust condition. It is simply a condition that assures the purpose for the humanitarian aid is met, as all political conditions that accompany humanitarian aid are. This is also why Pro's assertion of force behind humanitarian aid conditionality is also fallacious. Not only is there no force or loss of sovereignty whatsoever (as those conditions do not result in any transfer of power or allegiance), but those conditions are there to increase the success of the humanitarian aid, not for any provisions that benefit the donor in any shape or form. Pro has not shown otherwise, nor has Pro rendered any proof that there is any benefit to any party other than the recipient. At best, Pro has asserted that political conditions "do not work." This may be true in some cases, but it is not true in all cases, and I gave examples of cases in which it was beneficial. The best that Pro has done to prove this stance is provide quotes of others with an unknown degree of authority on the subject that illustrate their opinions. The majority of my support, on the other hand, provided real-world examples of application, successes, and failures in addition to accompanying beliefs.A Strawman argument regards a position, not necessarily an opponents argument directly. My position is that political conditions for humanitarian aid is not unjust. Pro attempted to paint those conditions as something that forcefully removes sovereignty and impugns on human rights, which is outright false. Therefore, it is tantamount to asserting that my position is "something that forcefully removes sovereignty or impugns on human rights is not unjust," which is a Strawman. Pro can claim that Strawman arguments must misrepresent a given argument within a debate, but as proven with support, it is not so. A Strawman argument can misrepresent a position as well, and this is precisely what Pro has done.Pro also claims that not all conditions are designed to make aid more functional, but Pro has not proven this, nor even rendered a single example of a political condition that was not meant to render aid more functional. Pro simply attempted to claim that it did not make aid more functional.In this way, Pro did nothing to prove any of Pro's assertions, and instead, attempted to disprove my own. Therefore, even if it may be perceived that Pro did disprove any of my arguments, Pro did not fulfill Pro's burden of proof.Pro also suggests that there is some entitlement to humanitarian aid. This is outright false. The "right to life" does not mean that a person is entitled to the preservation of his or her life no-matter-what and at any cost. It means that a person has a right to be protected from murder or the removal of that life if he or she so chooses. The preservation of every life is the responsibility of every autonomous human being. NGO's and sovereign countries, even those that provide humanitarian aid, are not actually responsible for other countries, even in the event of a crisis. It is human kindness and a degree of altruism that result in humanitarian aid. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean that any conditions placed on such aid are suddenly unjust.Pro has even gone so far as to say that Con offered no examples of how political conditions work to increase the efficacy of aid, after having approached a "grocery list" of examples, refuting each with arguments such as "but, is there any other way to do this?" That is irrelevant. That is how they are done, and there is nothing wrong with that (at least, Pro did not show how there is anything wrong with it).There are some arguments that Pro proposed that I did not directly approach. However, previous arguments satisfactorily approached the nature and ideas behind those arguments. Nonetheless, I cannot render a rebuttal here -- I will simply note, as I did in my previous rebuttal, that I ran out of space -- I exceeded the character limit, and could not approach those arguments directly. Therefore, I extend my previous arguments, which Pro has already had the opportunity to rebut.Ultimately, it boils down to whether it is accepted that improving humanitarian aid through political conditions is just, or whether it is believed that political conditions, in some mysterious and unexplained way, actually remove rights, profit donors, and make humanitarian aid any less effective than it already is.If it is accepted that improving humanitarian aid through political conditions is just, VOTE CON!Thank you.*drops mic*