There is an ongoing debate about whether rich countries or developing countries should assist poorer nations by giving money for prosperity, education and health-care system. Personally, I believe that both views can prove themselves right considering certain cases and circumstances.
On the one hand, those who advocate the view of first-class countries ought to aid undeveloped countries, can put forward cogent factors to back up their stance. Firstly, rich nations have plenty amount of money and resources, so they can afford to help. Secondly, it can solve big problems like diseases, illiteracy, and poverty. For example, when poor countries get aid, they can build hospitals and schools, which help people live better lives. Lastly, it shows humanity when developed nations share their wealth. Thus, mentioned factors are pointed out by topic supporters .
On the other hand, the proponents of refusing to help may as well provide rational ideas to sound plausible. For a start, it is argued that developing nations should take care of their own needs. If they depend too much on rich countries, they may never learn to solve problems themselves. Further, poor nations should create their own improving plans to health-care and education. Finally, if governments focus on training their people and using their natural resources wisely, they can grow stronger without outside help. Therefore, by implementing such kind of measures, it is possible to gain knowledge for doing it properly.
In conclusion, I would not wish to tip the scale in favor of one or the other party. Both sides have their valid arguments: for example, supporters claim that wealthy countries have wealth to assist and sharing it means humanity, whereas opponents state helping cause dependence, and poor countries have to deal with their problem.