EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That we should limit the amount of food aid that developed nations can freely provide

3 points
1 point
Natalia VasilevaNatalia Vasileva (PRO)
We are used to think that donating to charity, helping those in need is always a good thing to do. Limiting the amount of food aid to the developing countries where people starve could be regarded as greed and lack of sympathy for our fellow earth people. But looking deeper we start to see that the things are more complicated than they seem to be at first glance. 
In general, people are lazy and not willing to do more than they have to. The history shows that those facing severe weather conditions developed faster than those living in the fertile soil areas. The need and the threat of starvation motivates hard work and ingenuity, while getting free aid could easily provoke taking it for granted and thinking it will last forever. Why bother to develop then? 
 Moreover, being unable to serve themselves makes developing countries dependent on the aid, which leads to social distress and hatred when the aid comes to an end. A better solution here could be giving the people in need tools and teaching them how to provide themselves. This is much harder than just giving away food, but it gets repaid in the long run for both sides. 
The next argument is that in reality something very rarely goes without price. Countries giving the aid get the ability to dictate their own rules that usually include allowing the receiving nations to develop only those industries where they have absolute global competitive advantage. Usually they are the industries with the least value added, for instance resource extraction. Preventingcapital and technology intensive industries from development makes the poor nations even more dependent on imported goods, further leads to lower employment, stagnation and even worse problems in the long run. 
To summarize all above, I should say that even having the best intentions in mind, people should always consider the consequences. Despite it could sound cruel and selfish, limiting the amount of food aid that developed nations could freely provide could in reality serve the developing countries much better.

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-02-12 21:41:08
| Speak Round
Natalia VasilevaNatalia Vasileva (PRO)
It could be the case, my opponent didn’t have enough time to write his argument. 
Echo Four, please, feel free to post now.

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-02-15 12:06:47
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2018-02-20 00:34:38
joshuajudgeJudge: joshuajudge
Win awarded to: Echo Four
2018-02-21 23:40:12
jgestiotJudge: jgestiot
Win awarded to: Natalia Vasileva
The PRO side mounted a reasonable argument and should clearly be awarded the win on the basis that her opponent forfeited.

The first argument is somewhat convoluted and is based on clearly flawed and not demonstrated promises. For example, the claim that people are lazy. This sweeping statement is not only false but it takes away from the point. Also, the claim that people facing adverse weather conditions develop faster. Totally untrue and you only need to visit the Philippines to verify this. Perhaps the PRO side does not understand how people really survive in all kinds of conditions.

The claim that aid could lead to a form of dependency may have some merit. However, to say that hatered and distress is the result of aid drying out is not accurate.

Part of the central argument for the PRO side is the suggestion that providing means of production rather than money would be better. This has some truth to it. There are countless examples around the world of aid ending up in the pocket of corrupt individuals and food deliveries being provided to the people who do not need it while the poor starve.

The argument that countries receiving aid are dependent on rules imposed by the providing countries was well articulated.

Overall, even though some of the argumentation was flawed, the case was well presented and the win is deserved.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
How a judge can give a win to somebody who has not posted a single word is beyond me. Perhaps the admin could start looking at the many people here who register different profiles. There should be strict rules for allowing people to judge. For example, you cannot judge if you have not participated in a debate.
Posted 2018-02-21 23:43:45

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29