This House Believes We Should Only Give to the Developing World

The 20th ordinary meeting of the literific took place on the 26th of March in the senate room and was attended by 36 members. Private members business was accepted from Mr Craig Millar who asked the house about the Prime Ministers political debate participation, and miss Marie-Louise Synott who asked the house about Literificat flirting with people over facebook. Presidents questions were heard from Miss Rosie Waterson, Miss Marie Louise Synott, Mr Jonny Finlay HLM, Miss Alexandra Philpot HLM, Mr Fionn Rogers, and Mr Robie Whitehurst. President Pouryahya then announced the evenings motion: THB we should give only to the developing world.

Miss Beth Malcomson opened for the proposition stating that only giving to the developing world was in fact the most effective form of aid given that 80% of the worlds population inhabit the developing world. She explained how the top 10% of the worlds most wealthy, own 85% of the worlds wealth while the bottom 50% own just 1%. She agreed that Bono is a twat and defined ‘developing’ as meaning to live below the poverty line. She emphasised that in charity work, effectiveness, transparency and impact are key. She concluded by stating that all humans are of equal value and that would should not distance ourselves from other global citizens.

Mr Ethan McGlaughlin then opened the case for the opposition stating that money is needed not only by the developing world. He argued on a geopolitical basis that countries that are defined as ‘developing’ are not always those in need of aid. He asked the house who the money would go to in order to distribute it fairly. He concluded that charity makes up for failing government and so is not a solution.

Mr Ken McNicholl then continued the case for the proposition by arguing that we need to decide where our money is most needed and best used.

He stated that there is more suffering in the developing world, that 19,000 children die needlessly each day and so the need is self-evident. He suggested that it is more effective to give to the developing world where more good can be done for less money. He closed by arguing that all people are equal and that we should share citizenship and loyalty equally regardless of distance.

Mr Fionn Rogers then continued the case for the opposition. He stated that geography doesn’t matter, although we aren’t sure his views on various humanities subjects were relevant to the debate. Apparently advanced colouring in won’t solve the worlds issues… who knew?

He argued that the most benefit to most people is to provide means, not merely funding.

He concluded that our interconnected economy meant we can’t ignore the needs at home.

Mr Josh Milburn then closed the case for the proposition arguing that, yes the governments in the developing world ought to do more, but we still can’t ignore the suffering that is so evident. We can’t just let people die and so should not see charity as a mere stop-gap. He claimed that morally we have the same level of duty to someone across the world as we do someone on our doorstep. He concluded with the idea that famine and climate change are human made problems and we therefore need to compensate for that.

Mr Jonathan Finlay HLM, then closed the case for the opposition and so the debate by stating that we need to focus on what we can do right here, right now *cue dance routine*. He listed examples such as cancer treatment, HIV, Mental illness, problems that also need to be tackled at home. He concluded with the thought that the phrase ‘charity starts at home’ is stupid, but he was careful to emphasise that charity does not end at home either.

The debate then moved to the floor where questions and points were heard from Mr

Robbie Whitehurst, Mr Brendan Kelters HLM, Miss Sophie Stratfull HLM, Miss Aisha Sobey HLM, Mr Craig ‘Taxes’ Miller, Dr Stephen Goss HLM, and Miss Gemma Canham.

A preliminary vote was taken based on opinion which read 7 ayes, 18 nays, and 7 abstentions, whilst a casting vote based on speakers performance read 23 ayes, 2 nays, and 6 abstentions. The motion was carried.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s