Other possible actors are the multinational development banks and private organizations. Disadvantage ground will also be plentiful, including such longtime favorites as US hegemony, geopolitical positions including Russia and China, and political processes of target nations. The proactive and long-term nature of development assistance will also make shunning arguments highly salable. One benefit of a development assistance topic over many other proposed wordings is the larger generic negative ground. Removal of sanctions, constructive engagement, and normalization, at least, allow affirmatives to choose actions whose consequences are entirely specific to one country.
Uniqueness is a point that needs some defense.
Obviously the United States gives food aid and other humanitarian assistance to topic countries in the status quo. However, as discussed above, such assistance is perceived differently than development assistance which is longer-term and more interested in increasing the capabilities of the nation, rather than keeping the people alive. For instance, while food aid to North Korea may not disturb the US alliance with Japan, US aid for the development of heavy industry in North Korea might draw suspicion. While sending food to internally displaced persons in the Sudan probably does not constitute such egregious cultural hegemony as a plan to increase the availability of telecommunications, or to re-engineer agricultural techniques or markets. The nations proposed on the topic paper are listed on the State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and are consequently ineligible for all aid except some humanitarian packages.