...and to all those below who responded. I am passing this thread on to my grandson.
I think Wolfe has the only possible approach which provides a better understanding of scholastic debate to me. Christian (grandson's name) should, if he draws pro, very intelligently provide the reasons our slave masters give for foreign aid (your 1-5 pretty much covers it) with specific examples. Make a strong case which, in doing so, points out that all are immoral without saying so.
I will tell Christian that he should hope to rile folks up ... stir up some righteous indignation...because the debate exercise will be teaching. And, after all, since the majority of people in the US actually believe "humanitarian aid" is simply the strongest, wealthiest nation helping nations in need, there is a great need for waking people up by understanding the "pro" side...seeing how the deciders think. Christian could possibly convince the judges that he presented the strongest case despite the fact that the reasons are not moral. After all, an entire nation has either fallen for it or they don't care.
Thanks Wolfe...that was great and I appreciate the thought you put into it. It will give Christian some meat to dig into and, perhaps, keep him from praying he draws con. In fact, he is so far from herd mentality that he might even begin liking the challenge of drawing pro.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: