First-World Countries Do Not Necessarily Impoverish Third-World Countries By Making Themselves Richer

Thank you. Voting section was complete this time.

Done. I’ll post the vote content here:

It’s a good thing comments do not need to be considered in voting because on further reflection, Irealize my comments post were close minded, and I found a cause to vote on this alleged non-debate. Pro’s R1 did present an argument, though it was entirely allegorical. By simplifying the subject of debate from countries to individuals, he presented the argument the one person’s wealth does not necessarily impoverish another person unless the money supply is finite. It is clearly not. Pro wins on argument, regardless of Con’s full forfeit

Please delete my vote. In my vote, I did not have the four vote criteria, only the comment section of the vote. Very strange. Still another factor of debate that has failed me. Please cancel and I’ll try again. I intended that pPro win the debate and by more than Con f.f. Thanks

If someone full forfeits, their opponent wins. It's kind of common sense

How did pro win this debate? He offered no argument at all. his opponent forfeited all rounds. That's a win? Please tell me how. Effectively,
pro set of a 1st round Blitzkrieg. Not really, but it is not kosher in my book. Not voting at all is the proper response to this non-debate

I 'technically agree,

But when a country is richer, it probably has citizens with more capital to buy up businesses and land in other countries,
Has the ability to monopolize trade,
Have largest share of X research, best schools.

Of course other countries wouldn't 'have to let the richer country do as it likes,
And they can take advantage of some of what the richer country offers them, before reapplying the benefits to themselves.
Foreign investment can be contracted to be temporary before returning to the invested in countries government or people.