Whether or not you realize it, there are three basic philosophies when it comes to foreign aid. Those three viewpoints are best differentiated by their various goals. One (I'm calling it 'liberal') seeks to help the most people, another wants to help where it benefits us as well (reciprocal), and the last thinks it should be done as a last resort (libertarian). We have tackled these in my last two blog posts, so I encourage you to read those before wading into this article.
Last time, I left off describing how recognizing these backgrounds is important in debate. Two teams can miss each other entirely if they are aiming in completely opposite directions. If one side is shooting for simply aiding the most people in need and their opponents believe the idea should be measured by how we benefit in return, then both teams are leaving the judge to decide not only who wins but what winning means.
Great debaters should recognize this dilemma. Instead of simply arguing how the other team isn't meeting your goal, you need to first demonstrate why your objective is more worthy of being attained. Once you have established the necessity of viewing the issue with your philosophy, then you can reveal how the opposing team fails to accomplish it.
Let's say, for instance, you were arguing against someone whose case is to provide food for a small, poor nation in Africa. They have found a way to maximize an amount of foreign aid money and can feed one million people. You are coming from the reciprocal approach that we ought to get something in return while you recognize the Affirmative is coming at it from a liberal standpoint.
Right from the start, you should explain the difference of philosophy from the start. Show them how your varying goals incompatible. Next, it is time to discuss why yours is better. This can be done, in this case, by examining the role of government.
Where in the constitution does it say our federal government is to provide for the needs of other nations' peoples? Our government isn't a charitable organization. It has the purpose of establishing law and order in our own land, protecting the rights of its citizens, and protecting us from outside incursions. While feeding the poor in other parts of the world is a noble cause, that is what charitable organizations are for. If Americans want to help those in need, they don't voluntarily add more to their taxes. Instead, they give to charity or ministry. The job of the federal government is to advance the interests of our nation abroad. That means any assistance we provide ought to be in-line with a policy goal that the receiving party will help us with in return.
Once the correct goal has been highlighted, it's time to show how the opposing team fails to meet it. In our "feeding a poor nation" case, that would be done by providing evidence or logic that the plan wouldn't provide any direct benefits for the United States. If our country isn't getting any policy-related advantage, then the idea fails the reciprocity test.
There are arguments to be made for the other two viewpoints as well, I simply took the side of reciprocity as an example. The point is, effective debaters must recognize and utilize these differences of opinion in regards to what the goal of foreign aid is. Doing so can be simplified into three, easy, action steps. The sequence is;
1. Identify your own philosophy and your opponent's.
2. Explain to the judge the differences in both your approaches and how that effects the end goal. (who wins the debate)
3. Demonstrate to the judge why your view on foreign aid is more correct and how the opposing team fails to meet it.
I hope you adopt these strategies into your debates this coming season. Doing so will deliver an IMPACT of Excellence, I guarantee it!