15 votes

Help My Grandson in His Debate Anyone?

My grandson is being home schooled this year for the first time. The majority of the HS program is KONOS which is Christian-based.
He is taking debate and the topic this semester is "Should the federal government supply foreign (humanitarian) aid?" He will soon be in the regional competition and there is even a national competition for home schooled students.

Here is his dilemma. He is very anti-big government and the students have been given a huge packet of information which contains a lot of very good information (most of which you would all agree with) about why the federal government should not be into foreign aid. My question has nothing to do with that as I would imagine we are all in agreement. However, in debate you have to be able to debate both sides. Other than going into Christian reasons for charity, what "could" his pro side contain. (Remember debate is an exercise in critical thinking).

About all I could come up with is a little off the wall. After acknowledging that hisoipponents have presented very good anti reasoning, he might throw out that (a) there is no possibility that big government will go away over night and return to the Constitution and (b) given the obvious political-geographic dickering with the slush fund we call foreign aid it, too, is not likely to go away. How then do we turn the tide into foreign aid (of the supposedly humanitarian flavor) into a relatively good thing?

Suppose the foreign aid money delineated for humanitarian aid and taken from the tax payers is returned to the States (by some fair method either based on the percentage of taxes paid in or the population by state). The state then allows communities to vote on whether they want the "humanitarian aid" to go to its communities in need or overseas. Never could there be a better time to do this as due to the economy and the government, there has never been greater need within the communities and if they were to vote to send that money overseas, it would more nearly approximate true Christian charity. Note: I am betting all or most of that money would stay in the communities.

LOL...I know that's off the wall. Was wondering if anyone has a thought on how you could present a pro side. In another thread I shared that my Mom lost the National High School Debate in Washington on the topic "Will the US get pulled into WWII." She drew the side that yes we would at a time when the American people were totally against it. One of her arguments was that we would if something happened like..say, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." She knew nothing about false flags at that time and just came up with that. She lost the debate because her argument was considered too preposterous.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is wrong that they are

This is wrong that they are being made to debate both sides... what the teacher is doing is assuming that both sides have legitimate arguments. I would not debate the other side regardless of the consequences because it has no valid arguments.

Unless you could expose the ridiculousness of the other sides argument while you are "advocating" it. Sort of how Troy addressed it.

Why foreign aid?

People enjoy getting free money...

We give money to dictators and are able to control them and other countries through aid - the benefit is that we have vassal states and rather than the people of the country deciding their fate, we get to decide it. More power to us.

Initially I Thought It Was Wrong Too

....however, after I listened to all my grandson had learned about big government, the Constitution, media and government misleading the public, I changed my mind.

In a way the almost impossible nature of the subject made them dig deep
and care about an important issue. Perhaps, beyond that they will look at other things the public is misled in.

To learn to think critically, you really do have to look at and understand all sides of an issue even if it is to better defend what you already believe.


I understand what you are

I understand what you are saying but an argument should consist of legitimate points. If the other side has no legitimate points, how can you argue it?

Define what foreign aid means and you always win the argument

Simply define it to your pleasing.

Eg, What is foreign aid?

foreign aid is a ham sandwich.

Ham sandwich is tasty

Foreign aide is tasty

You get the idea.

Funny, But

....true in that we are so often told "what is" by telling us "what is not" so we will go along with it. Sigh.


I don't have

anything that could help with the debate (sorry, can't think of a pro) but that story about your Mom is just awesome and good luck to your Grandson!

Thanks Suzanimal

...my Mom was awesome and she used that story to teach us some things. I also got to meet the person who won and hear him tell her that she should have won.

However, the greatest lesson is that in some debates you have to reach deep for the "what ifs" and often what really happens in the case of false flags sounds too preposterous for anyone to believe. The designers of those evil schemes count on that.


How about this:

"Should the federal government supply foreign (humanitarian) aid?"

A self-governing people, within a truly federated (as in confederation of separate sovereign states) government system, should, each who wishes to do so, supply foreign (humanitarian) aid, at their own cost, as they please, with the exception of aiding and abetting, or providing the means by which we suffer, to enemies of self-government people, within a true federated government system, as those transfers of power, money/purchasing power/moral aid/physical aid/information may appear to be "humanitarian" to our enemies, but to us it is treasonous to the concept of self-governing people, within a true federated government system, as those enemies will then use that (humanitarian aid) power to enslave us, which defines the meaning of "our enemies".


Sending Federal Reserve Notes to hire Dictators in other countries, so that those Dictators can enslave the people in those countries, is often called "Humanitarian Aid" so that type of "Humanitarian Aid" would constitute treason if that type of crime (made legal) was perpetrated upon a self-governing people, within a true federated government system, where the definition of such a thing, is specific and not ambiguous, so as to leave no room for constructive interpretations that pretend to make treason appear to be "humanitarian aid" according to the false authorities, their minions, and the sycophants who serve them.

But, assuming that the question assumes that U.S.A. is a true federated system, which it is not, and assuming that "humanitarian aid" to a foreign government is actually aiding and abetting the enemies of a free, self-governing people, then of course, if you are a criminal hiding behind a false front known as the "Federal" government, then it is a good idea to spend the stolen loot on gaining even more power to steal even more loot from the slaves, wherever they may be hiding.


Absolutely Agree Josf

...and so does he at age 14. He hopes he does not draw the pro side as he is fully prepared to tell all the reasons federal aid is just a slush fund and even when we are told it is for humanitarian reasons, it seldom is.

Thanks for responding. Good thoughts!



I was about 14 when I read a book titled The Lusitania, and in those days that was the extent of the information available to me as a means by which I too could discover the facts concerning our enemies who have taken over our self-governing country.

There is much hope in our future, despite all that is aligned against hope, and the new generation carries that torch.

It won't be easy, but it sure is good to hear that we are not alone.