As most foreign aid often benefits the donor more than the receiver, developing countries should refuse to repay their debts. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

Without a shadow of a doubt, in the developed regions, people are enormously affluent, and they tend to provide donations to other countries that are underprivileged and generate excess attention; it is ambivalent. However, citizens from these countries believe that contributors from foreign lands are more advantageous than them and restricted from clearing these loans. In my perspective, I vehemently accord with the assertion and will elucidate my certitude in the forthcoming paragraphs.

On the one side, individuals who reside in developed cities have a lavish and elite lifestyle. They prefer to donate a tiny sum of their savings to other nations and render support for a better well being in the countries that are still progressing toward primary survival. Moreover, they not only support assistance but also claim that it benefits them to have a rapid deviation when they file their taxes. To cite an example, a wide range of multinational organizations provide aid to the poor people in other lands, and this accounts for crucial tax exemption rather than paying the same income tax to the government. Similarly, famous personalities such as movie actors supply free education to the poor children residing in Africa, and their sole purpose is to neglect paying taxes. Hence, individuals who are amazed to make such contributions have more merits.

On the flip side, residents who live in regions with a low economy are forbidden to pay back these loans. They claim that citizens who live in nations with a high economy have an affluent lifestyle, and it will not have any impact on their survival. However, the receivers struggle hugely on an everyday basis to make their ends meet. For instance, they are already in trepidation for their preliminary needs such as food, shelter and clothing, and added pressure to give back, and their loans might lead to further depletion of their state of living. Thus, they restrict themselves from repaying their money as it has minimal impact on their daily living.

In a nutshell, people who make donations have multiple factors, which eventually is an immensely lucrative, and it does not outweigh their primary living. Hence, individuals who receive these amounts must be forbidden to pay back these sums.

Sample 2:

Repayment of loans taken by borrowers, be they individuals or nations is obligatory and mandatory. Rich nations have been lending money to poor ones for several decades from loan transactions. However, this essay does not support the argument that poor nations must refuse to repay the money that they have borrowed from rich nations.

On the other hand, loans benefit the donor nations more than the receiving ones is inherent in the process of lending. For example, loans advanced by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, are under the control of developed countries. Poor nations receive huge loans for projects proposed by these financial agencies, many of which cater to the needs of the donors themselves. Moreover, developing nations spend huge amounts of this borrowed money to import machinery and arms ammunition from developed nations.

On the other hand, all these reasons are not enough to argue ethically that loans taken should not e paid back. A loan is a loan, and irrespective of how it was spent, it should be paid back. To maintain good relations between the donor and the receiving nations, conditions of agreement must be followed religiously. To abide by laws is vital for the very existence of mankind and, as such, a debt should not turn out to be a bed debt.

Having looked at both the sides of the issue, it can be safely argued that since coexistence is the buzzword today, refusing to repay borrowed money is morally indefensible. It will also cause difficulties in getting help in times of need.