To begin. We must first establish what exactly the definition of inherent is. My opponent has cleverly mixed the meaning of inherent with obligation
and this is not the same. When something is inherent to another, it is a natural, inseparable part of the other. When doing a quick look at the
definition provided by Dictionary.com, an on line dictionary, one can see that it clearly states what I have defined.
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.
the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc.
An obligation is clearly something that one has to do, whether it is legal, or ethical because that said entity has agreed to. Similar to a contract.
As it can easily be seen, inherent is not the same as obligation. If a nation feels obligated in helping with the recovery of a nation after a
disaster, than that is due to past dealings between countries, contracts, or even compassion. This obligation is not a natural, or an permanent, and
inseparable element of a nation. To further assert this point, one can see the list of Synonyms listed below the definition of inherent. These
synonyms further reinforce the definition of inherent and exclude obligation as a part of it. Something that is natural is not an obligation, but it
is innate, native, inbred or ingrained.
Due to this simple definition, one can clearly see that it is impossible for any nation, whether they are developed or not, to be inherent of another.
This is because the definition of a nation is one where its people have reached a level of independence. And for a nation to be independent, it
clearly means that this nation does not want to be sheltered, oppressed, controlled by another. With this simple logic, one can clearly see, that
being inherently responsible is not logical. If a nation does indeed provide aid in the recovery of a nation, it can only mean several things.
One it means that this nation may have diplomatic ties with this nation in need. This may actually be an obligation, as my opponent has expressed,
but not inherent. Two, the people within this nation have pressured its representatives into providing this aid, or themselves have made efforts to
provide aid. This is more in tune with the human compassion element, but it is still not inherent of a nation, as not everyone in this nation cares
for the recovery of another. Third and last, sometimes, nations help in the recovery of another due to financial aspects, and profits. This is
definitely not an inherent part of a nation.
My opponent has listed several reasons as to why he confirms that a nation has an inherent responsibility to another. These elements evolve after a
nation has been established, but initially, and even further on, they may be discarded because of the inherent responsibility that a nation has to
itself, and its people. A global image is only important to that nation, aid in a recovery may help in a nations image, but it is not evidence that a
nation is inherently responsible for another. As I have explained before. Human compassion does not exist in all of us, thus the nation. In times
of great chaos, and desperate survival, people throw this compassion out the window, and only look after themselves. What have we seen happen in
Haiti? People are killing each other in order to survive. Where is their human compassion if they are the most affected? This is clearly not
evidence of an inherent responsibility of one nation to another nation. There will always be humans willing to help, but at the same time, these same
humans can easily overlook this catastrophe, if it meant their own survival.
International relations are essential parts of nations. There are different resources that can only be obtained due to this. But in today's world,
international relations are not always necessarily for the good of both nations. There is more than enough evidence to show this. Developed nations
have, and will continue raping another nations economy, resources, and its people in order to advance itself. Even with honest international
relations, a nation can end this without a warning as this is not an inherent responsibility to these other nations if it needs to. It is not an
inseparable element of this nation. The same can be said in regards the future recognition of a nations efforts in the recovery of another nation.
If a notion helps, in order to be helped, than it is for self interest, and nothing more. Self interest, and an inherent responsibility are not the
same. Finally, responsibility, as my opponent describes. I can agree that a more developed nation may feel responsible for aiding another in a
recovery. The responsibility my opponent describes is not the same as an inherent responsibility. Even with this, a nation should not feel
responsible for other nations just because it is a greater economic power and makes others less powerful. This is not inherent of any nation, as even
developing nations do not feel any inherent responsibility for lesser developed nations.
My opponent is correct in that I can not refute that a nation will probably gain a negative image in geopolitics if it takes a stance of isolationism.
But this is not the debate. A negative image, has nothing to do with the inherent responsibility of a nation. The only inherent responsibility of a
nation is to itself and its people because this is the only thing that is an inseparable, natural part of that nation. Another, independent nation,
is just that, a nation that does not depend on any other. Haiti's inherent responsibility should have been to prepare its population for disasters
such as this, but unfortunately, they were not, and this is why we see this tragedy. This is true for any independent nation.
Question 1: In a time of a global catastrophe where several developed nations have experienced millions of casualties, and great catastrophe. Do
you believe that the nation that suffered less damage, should be inherently responsible for all the others?