Question: PROBLEM: Claim: Historically the donor of Foreign Aid has always set down pre-requisites
What evidence supports this claim?

EVIDENCE: 1. When a donor nation parts with foreign aid for development to a nation , it must always choose who it prefers to give it to as there is a limited pot of money to donate there needs to be a way of allocating it .
2. It is not surprising therefore that countries with shared colonial histories tend to dominate aid flows , thus Britain has historically given most aid to countries that were its colonies ; in 1960 Malta and Cyprus received most , while India was the biggest recipient for much of the rest of the 20 Century .
3. Further , often countries offering aid , such as the US , the UK , and the EU , require the pre-requisite of democracy or the start of a democratisation process .
4. Therefore , it is justified to add a pre-requisite for better standards of business and labour as it helps implementation , and principally meets the goals of the developmental aid itself .
5. Provost , Claire , UK aid : where does it o and how has it changed since 1960 ?
6. , , 14 April 2011 , Dollar , David and Alesina , Alberto .
7. Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why ?
8. Journal of Economic Growth , Volume 5 , No. 1 -LRB- Mar. , 2000 -RRB- .


PROBLEM: Claim: Ransom payments reward criminal behaviour.
What evidence supports this claim?

EVIDENCE: 1. So long as ransoms continue to be paid , the practice will not stop spreading .
2. In 1999 , 92 % of all kidnappings took place in just ten countries ; by 2007 , the practice had spread to six more countries .
3. The potential rewards of kidnapping has also led to the practice spreading across borders .
4. Given the threat posed by such serious criminals it is more than reasonable for the state to prohibit an action such as ransom payment , which so greatly rewards criminal behaviour .
5. Both of these factors greatly decrease the chances of their detection and capture .
6. It aids them financially , and brings a swift conclusion to a risky situation .
7. Bluntly , the payment of ransom is exactly what the criminal in question wants .


PROBLEM: Claim: Collisions are a part of the game.
What evidence supports this claim?

EVIDENCE: 1. First , collisions are part of the tradition of baseball .
2. They have been part of the game for a very long time .
3. Fans , players , and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time .
4. Some things are part of the game .
5. Theres not a whole lot you can do , said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek , who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career .
6. Variteks manager at the time , Terry Francona , agreed : Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt , but you got to play the game .
7. And former catcher Brad Ausmus , who had also been hit multiple times in his career , echoed the sentiment : -LSB- I -RSB- t 's part of the game .
8. When you put on the shin guards and chest protector , you know that if theres a play at the plate and youre blocking the plate , you could take a hit at any moment .
9. As the Associated Press put it , many people believe home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch .
10. Second , home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard .


PROBLEM: Claim: The ICC is the best way to prosecute serious crimes because of its permanence; individual tribunals are not enough.
What evidence supports this claim?

EVIDENCE:
Answer: 1. 64 No. 1 , Winter 2001 , 3-11 .
2. Even though tribunals such as the ones for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may have worked , they were `` necessarily limited in scope '' and can not be applied on a large scale , which is what is needed .
3. Additionally , those tribunals were relatively ineffective , as they took two years to set up , and relying on establishing new tribunals every single time wastes precious time .
4. The ICC is uniquely beneficial because of its intention to be a permanent force that will always hold people accountable , instead of slowly reacting to crimes after-the-fact .
5. It is intended to be universal and apply to every situation without mandating the creation of a new tribunal every time something happens , and may be even more effective than tribunals at responding to crimes .
6. `` The International Criminal Court : Current Issues and Perspectives . ''
7. Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol .
8. Doing so would also let smaller but still serious crimes slip under the radar , as they would not warrant the creation of a new tribunal , but may still count as a crime against humanity .
9. Kirsch , Philippe .