Currently, we offer help to 3rd world nations if they give us something in return, say promises, abortion, political support. I disagree with the give-back method. However, if we were to assist 3rd world nations, instead of offering abortion, what could we offer them that we could get in return while still giving something that they need per moment?
A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
Good question!
The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution). If their system of governance understands, embrace and protects their citizens’ “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, then we have a stable environment for building schools for basic education (“mathematics and literature,” etc.). Otherwise; in an uncivil environment surrounded by killing and mayhem, basic education, and other civil services simply breakdown.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me get this straight. You want to, “send troops” in an atmosphere surrounded by killing and mayhem and have our troops do more killing in an uncivil environment?
Let me use your own words in your reply to “someone234”:
“…the best way to eliminate it [uncivil society] is not by military takeover, but by exposing it for what it is using philosophy and reasoning.”
So again I will repeat the “philosophy and reasoning” I used, backed by the physical laws of nature:
The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution).
Perhaps, by reading those links will also expose you to “philosophy and reasoning” backed by a physical law in nature.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.
To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.
The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:
It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Your defence is based in large parts in empty platitudes and just world fallacies. For instance the country with the highest GDP PPP per capita is Qatar and depending on whose list you go by the USA might not crack the top 10. Meanwhile the faster growing major economy, thought to be the world's superpower by the end of this century, is China. Liberty does not make people rich. Meanwhile the USA has significant problem with crime with one of the world's highest incarceration rates. Viewing your country as good does not mean it will be economically successful.
2) You haven't understood the actual point of the video, which I think links in with point 1 in that you don't understand why some countries are rich and some are poor.
To use an analogy but scaled down to individuals rather than companies; you seem to think that if we help people enough then everyone can be a Managing Director of a major company. That isn't correct because while there can be some Managing Directors, there need to be a heck of a lot more normal employees, street sweepers, janitors and people with no job due to structural unemployment. In a Capitalist society these lesser paid positions will exist and they will be lesser paid because control over pay is in the hands of the Capitalist and the system incentives them to not pay others more than necessary - and for menial jobs which MUST be performed but could be performed by just about anyone there is little incentive to pay well.
Similarly in the global economy there will need to be countries focusing on commodity creation with low added value - someone has to grow the food and mine the ores and sew the sneakers. The comparative advantage that lets poorer countries specialise their is the lower level of subsistence they hold to - Western farmers and miners would never work for the wages that are paid in the poorer countries. This also benefits the wealthier countries by allowing them to buy food and raw materials and goods with low added value that can be made in a sweatshop at low prices. There have to be industries focusing on low added value commodities and due to the principle of comparative advantage countries will tend to specialise - e.g. if they are one of the cheaper food producers in the world because of the low low wages of their farmers then they will continue to have a significant agricultural focus.
To put it another way - if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this? The supply and demand factors won't change so why are these farmers suddenly getting paid more?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Note to @Ampersand, I will respond to your post, but since it is late, I only have time for this. A third world nation is not exactly on that did not side with the US or the USSR in the Cold War, heck a lot of people were neutral for fear of offending people. Neutrality is a factor, and one war does not serve as the basis for 3rd world country judgement. For the purposes of this debate, I consider a third world country to be that which has a poor economy and faces struggles that the government in place can not handle, which is leading to problems within and outside the country.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions."
Now you can still use it in the manner you are, as Wikipedia also notes that the term has no agreed upon meaning and is commonly used to refer to developing countries etc as well, but the fact that it has no agreed upon meaning is why it's usually best to use "developing countries" so as to avoid confusion.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 18  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
While my arguments are not based off of world fallacies, I agree that China is one of the world's top powers and has the fastest growing economy, as that the US has its fair share of problems. However, incarceration rates have nothing to do with being economically successful. Sure, it costs cash to hold prisoners, but there is no instance where this has led to economical crisis. You are right, liberty does not make people rich, but liberty that is followed, supported, and legally provided encourages autonomy and for people to become rich under a liberty based society. We may not have the highest GDP per capital, but we do have one of the largest budgets in the world, or gross capital to access, which makes us economically successful.
With that being said, I may not have understood the point of the video, can you summarize it for me?
Second, I think you are missing the point of my argument. I completely agree that people need to take menial roles and not everyone can be a managing director. but instead of supporting Libya with the purchase of a coffee, I am talking about government support, which is the manager ex machina. As the government, we are responsible for directing foreign and world affairs without getting overly involves in every world affair. While we as individuals can contribute, I am referring to the government, whose job it is to support 3rd world (or developing) countries, not the menial roles of the everyday worker.
This follows into my key point, in that our government does not want to take the time to undertake a large scale project which would require 2 BN say to fix in a developing country. As a solution, our government should spend 60 MN and focus on one aspect of a third world (developing) country that needs improvement, say roads, and keep spending money to rebuild the nation over a few years. That way, the country can remain autonomous and use the gift to boost the economy while establishing good relations with the US.
To answer your question, the reason farmers get paid more in the US to produce the same crop than in Africa is because our currency is economically stable and not so in other nations. We pay more because we understand the full meaning of our work, to produce domestically fresh fruit, thus getting paid more because we are the producers for our own country.Economic stability is the best factor for why some places pay more. I could be payed 1 MN in Africa for farming, but if the value of that MN is only $1.50 US dollars per day, it is clear to see why currency would play a role in this.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 18  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
The point of the video is that charity does not change the institutional causes which create poverty. The charitable giving as part of your purchase is just an analysis of consumerism, the point still stands if you give to charity as a separate action from your commercial purchases which crate the conditions of poverty. 2BN in road improvements will not substantially alter the socioeconomic status of a country. Poor people living in poverty on a few dollars a day will still be living in poverty on a few dollars a day. Your action does nothing substantial to change the situation that causes poverty and suffering.
You also did not answer the question I asked. I did not ask "Why do American farmers make more money from agriculture", I asked: "if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this?" Please answer the question. Currently masses of people in the developing world get paid very little and live in poverty in a range of occupations centred around the production of raw materials, food and textiles. After all your charity happens, who will be producing the raw materials, food and textiles that they are currently producing, how much will they be getting paid for it and if you say they are getting paid more - why are they getting paid more?
Also your answer to the question I didn't ask is incorrect anyway. Stability of the currency does not cause the wages of agricultural workers to be high or low - look at how despite the value of the pound in the Uk fluctuating considerably over the last year or two since Brexit; the farmers still get paid far more than developing countries whose currency is stable. hence we know your answer is wrong.
"We pay more because we understand the full meaning of our work, to produce domestically fresh fruit, thus getting paid more because we are the producers for our own country" just seems to be a platitude with no actual meaning.
The actual answer is twofold:
1) Farmers in Western nations receive massive subsidies, e.g. https://fullfact.org/economy/farming-subsidies-uk/.
2) Farmers benefit from protective trade policies. Countries like the USA will arrange free trade agreements with developing nations which cover 95% or so of goods and allow free trade of things like jet engines which of the two countries only the USA can produce, ensuring that the USA can sell it's highly expensive high value added goods competitively with other advanced nations (like the Uk, germany, etc) who might produce jet engines. it also ensures the developing nation can't put protective measures in place to start trying to develop its own jet engine business as infant industries need a good deal of protection until they've grown enough to be competitive. However of the 5% of stuff that isn't covered, this will cover agricultural products, textiles, etc ensuring that the cost of their products in the USA is massively inflated over what it's market price would be.
There are other influences as well such as the the greater industrial level and ability to loan money in the USA, but those would be meaningless if the agricultural sector wasn't so heavily subsidised and protected as the farmers wouldn't make enough to afford the more efficient equipment and no-one would give them a loan when they would be so dirt poor.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
One of the main reasons third-world nations are doing so poorly is the prevalent corruption throughout all elements of their political, economical and even societal systems. With this in mind, you definitely do not want to help them by performing an unconditional act of charity, as the fruits of that act are almost certain to be evaporated along its travel throughout all the steps on the ladder of corruption.
Bill Gates employs a complex approach where he invests money in education and healthcare in third-world nations; his reasoning is that healthy and educated people are the main drivers of the modern economy. However, he does not do it through charity; his foundation, instead, acts as a private profit-focused company, and its sustenance requires that every investment results in a financial profit. As a result, his foundation is one of the highest ranked private human capital-focused foundations in the world, and he has managed to improve life even in countries on which Western politicians have long given up.
I think this is the approach we should employ, if we truly want the third world to stop being the third world. Pragmatic business approach, no matter how cold-hearted it seems, somewhat paradoxically tends to be the most effective one.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra