Browse By


Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.

Don’t settle for being a good debater. You can be great. Click here to visit my Debate Academy to get personal coaching, and more.

Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.

Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.

This is a very relevant topic in today’s political climate. It’s an interesting one, and should lend itself to some good debates. Hopefully students don’t try to turn it into a definition debate or take abusive positions focused strictly on the meaning of development assistance. Regardless, let’s get into it!


Wealthy nations – This is a relative term. Wealthy nations can also be translated in the context of the resolution to mean “wealthier nations.” The intent is basically to make a delineation between countries that can provide assistance, and countries that need assistance.

Development assistance – This is basically foreign aid designed to help a nation develop a particular part of its society or government. It can come in many forms including but not limited to money, resources, and personnel. The thing to focus on here is that the assistance is designed to help the development of the country, so it is distinct from things like humanitarian aid or military assistance during armed conflict.

Obligation – What’s interesting here is that the resolution doesn’t state “moral” obligation. So, your case must explain how nations determine what obligations they have, period. This can include legal obligations, moral obligations, or other obligations you can think of. The resolution isn’t limited to the realm of moral theory this time.

Frameworks/Case Positions


1. Categorical Imperative – The categorical imperative, all three maxims, work pretty well to argue for this resolution. It is easy to conceive of a world where every wealthy provides assistance as a desirable one to live in. Not only that, the act of providing such assistance can reasonably be thought of as an action which strives toward a number of different ends in the kingdom of ends. This is a strong framework for the affirmative of this resolution. Read more about the categorical imperative on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here.

2. Veil of Ignorance/Original Position – Everyone has defining characteristics which impart biases onto their political and moral reasoning. Ideally, if we could, we should develop social justice policies without these biases because that will yield the most objectively reasonable outcome. This state of deliberation, in which actors are free from the influence of any personal bias, was dubbed by John Rawls as the original position. One could contend that, when evaluated from the original position, it is easy to see that wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to others. After all, you could wake up tomorrow and be a member of one of those “other nations.” Read more about Rawls’s original position here.

3. Virtue Ethics – Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean would establish providing assistance as the proper course of action between the two extremes of doing nothing and taking over/doing everything. It is the moderate approach to helping other nations develop, and as such, is the virtuous course of action. Read more about Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean here.


1. Social Contract Theory – The social contract, and government, are formed primarily to protect a nation’s own citizens. Therefore, any government primary obligation is to its own people. One could argue that no government in the world, however wealthy, has sufficiently met this obligation. Even in the United States, we have yet to have proper due process of law and equal protections for minorities. Providing assistance to other nations must come at a price; the money has to come from somewhere, and that is money that could be used to solve domestic issues. The opportunity cost of providing assistance for any nation is too high. Read more about contractarianism here.

2. International Law – The only obligations that exist between nations are legal ones. There is no global social contract as citizens have not formed or consented to a global government. Nowhere in international law does it specify an obligation for wealthier nations to provide development assistance, and as such, an obligation like that cannot exist. It should be noted that this position will require a clear distinction to be made between humanitarian aid and development assistance because international law is rife with obligations for humanitarian aid.

3. Utilitarianism – For any action to be good, and therefore reasonably be considered obligatory, it must provide the most good for the greatest number of people. Often, development assistance does not do that. There is evidence to suggest that it can actually harm the countries receiving the aid. Often, such countries are ruled by destructive regimes which do not actually direct the assistance towards its intended goals, and instead use it to carry out their own agendas. Additionally, this assistance means that there is less available for the wealthy nation’s own citizens.

That’s it, hope it helps you get started. Feel free to post comments and questions below, and check out the Academy if you want personal private coaching!

5 thoughts on “Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.”

  1. Anna says:

    Can you define “other nations”? Seems like a vague term that could mean places like Germany where people roll around in BMWs and wear Sennheiser headphones.

    1. sxa255 says:

      Because wealthy is a relative term, “other nations” will generally refer to countries that are in like the top 10% of GDP. So you’re looking at the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, lots of European nations, those sorts of places.

  2. bobby says:

    Thank you so much this helps so much. So I’m a novice in debate and I’m LD so I wanted a clarification of what all the words mean like value, criterion, framework and especially how they are connected. I just don’t understand anything.

    1. sxa255 says:

      Hey Bobby,

      That’s a pretty big question and something I’d recommend you discuss with your coach for additional detail. I’ll try to explain it as simply as I can here.

      Framework – Think of this as a foundation of a house, the thing that holds up your case. What is the underlying thread? The story that you’re trying to tell? People commonly put arguments that should be frameworks into their contentions. That’s a common mistake.

      Value – This is the most important thing in the round. Certain common values include Justice, Morality, etc…What you want to way with your value is “this is the most important thing there is.” LD is a value clash debate, meaning there should generally be two values competing against each other.

      Value Criterion – There are two types of criterion that are generally use. One is the weighing mechanism. With this one, you’re basically providing a way to determine how much of your value has been achieved. For example, a value of Justice might have a value criterion of Virtue. How virtuous a society is can be a measure of well that society adheres to Justice. The other type is a means to an end. With this type, you’re providing a tool to get to your value. To reach justice, for example, you have to protect human rights. So your value criterion could be protection of human rights.

      Hope that helps. Good luck!

  3. bobby says:

    what is a criterion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *