The Instigator
Clockwork
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
43 Points

Public Forum, October Topic: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 18,872 times Debate No: 9560
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (15)

 

Clockwork

Con

NOTE: Disregard any contextual inaccuracies (my partner and I) that result from the direct usage of in-round formalities within both debaters' first respective speeches. To my opponent: feel free to copy and paste your in-tournament PRO case if you already have one prepared.

In resonance with Public Forum conduct, I ask my opponent to exclude any attempts of refutation in his first speech.

Resolution: When in conflict, the UN should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.

As a human race, one of our greatest shortcomings has been something of an inability to foresee the long-term consequences of our actions. From excessive government spending to the recent reckless loaning methods that led to the economic recession, we often fail to realize that it is useless gain short-term wellbeing by sacrificing long-term stability. Only by looking into the future alongside the present can we accurately weigh the significance of our actions. Because my partner and I understand that improvement is irrelevant if it cannot be sustained, we feel obligated to stand in negation to the resolution that, when in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.

Definitions for poverty reduction and environmental protection can be allocated through the actions of their respective subdivisions within the UN, respectively the UNDP and the UNEP. Poverty is defined by the World Bank as a state of living in which capable of adults live on less than 2.50 US dollars per day.

Contention One: Environmental and agricultural sustainability must precede poverty reduction efforts in order to ensure stability.

Desertification is quickly reducing the amount of arable land in developing nations, especially in India and sub-Saharan Africa. Desertification is swiftly progressing due to unsustainable agricultural methods being practiced in those nations, such as overgrazing and improper irrigation and fertilization methods. Luckily, sustainable agriculture is easily maintained, self-incentivizing and requires little funding to carry out.

Subpoint A: Sustainable agriculture is necessary to support persons in developing nations.

According to a United Nations University conference on desertification, if current trends continue, Africa will only be able to feed 25% of its people by 2025. Even if poverty is eliminated, the reduction of poverty will be irrelevant if there is no food to be bought. Likewise, 47 % of India's once-arable land has been rendered inhospitable through desertification. If agriculture cannot be up kept in these developing areas, food supplies will decrease, food costs will increase, and the inhabitants will sink into deeper and deeper levels of poverty.

Subpoint B: Agricultural stability precedes economic stability in developing nations.

In many developing nations, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, a majority of inhabitants work as subsistence farmers. The majority being occupied with farming, there is little economic stimulus for modern markets for people to purchase their own food. Until local agricultural methods can be improved in order to provide an adequate surplus to feed people working outside of the agricultural industry, economic development will be severely hindered.

Subpoint C: Stimulating agricultural sustainability is highly cost-effective in comparison to poverty reduction.

Luckily for the farmers of Africa and India, superior methods of farming are a simple matter of education. In fact, according to UC-SAREP , sustainable agriculture methods tend to increase yield both in the short and long term. In contrast to the taxing reduction of poverty, restoring sustainable agriculture mainly involves teaching farmers correct grazing and irrigation methods, instruction on crop rotation, and proper water conservation. The prospect of increased crop yield is incentive enough to encourage farmers to practice these alternative methods: reversing the effects of desertification would be as simple as educational meetings or even pamphlet distribution.

Contention Two: The United Nations lacks the necessary means to ensure global poverty reduction.

Critics of the UN are quick to point out that it is plagued by having too little funding and power to get much of anything done. As it stands, there is no reason to believe that efforts by the UN aimed at reducing global poverty have any chance at even putting a dent in the problem.

Subpoint A: The UN is inadequately funded too significantly reduce global poverty.

The UN's unadjusted budget leaves the UNDP, the suborganization responsible for dealing with poverty, around 6 billion dollars to work with for the next two years. Even if the UN were to devote all of these resources exclusively to poverty reduction, ignoring the other Millennium Goals, it wouldn't even come close to making an impact on global poverty. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation alone has an endowment of 30.2 billion dollars; the UN has so little funding that it shouldn't waste its time on a problem that is already being tackled on a much larger degree by countless charitable organizations.

Subpoint B: Corrupted administrations and lack of transparency in developing nations severely hamper the effects of poverty reduction.

A study conducted by political scientists Knack and Brautigam strongly correlates high aid levels with government deterioration. Furthermore, the often-corrupt governments responsible for allocating aid lack the transparency necessary to ensure that the money is getting where it needs to go. The same aforementioned study also drew direct connections between high aid levels and elevated in transparency levels. The amount of power that the UN can exert on a sovereign nation is basically up to the nation in question, and, as such, the UN lacks authority to assure that its funding will be used to feed the hungry as opposed to lining some greedy dictator's pockets.

In conclusion, as opposed to resorting to irrelevant appeals to the emotional aspect of poverty, you, the judge, need to look at the facts. Not only is protecting the threatened environments of developing nations more beneficial and cost-effective than attempting to reduce poverty, but the funds that are allocated to reducing poverty will be so greatly affected by monetary and authoritative barriers that their results will be rendered negligible. The choice is clear. Vote CON.
philosphical

Pro

I will be debating for the pro side of the resolution "Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection."

The definitions I will provide are as follows:
Poverty: The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

Prioritize: To give a high priority to.

Thesis:
Millions of people all over the world, suffer harsh conditions such as under-paid laboring, and being generally un-able to provide due to circumstances regarding lack of attention on poverty. Helping to fix this should be our main priority.

Contention #1-
Reducing poverty, can help rather than hurt the environment. Lifting people from desperate economic circumstances can free them to take a long-term view of natural resource management. More importantly, as low income communities gain economical and political leverage, they are better able to protect their environment against depredations of others. Empowered communities that refuse to accept dis-proportionate pollution cut off the option off "dumping in someone else's backyard" helping to push the larger society to adopt more effective methods of emissions reductions and pollution control.

A: If people were paid properly, well fed, and treated to the conditions that essentially every human being should deserve, the environment protection would also increase substantially. For one, these individuals could focus their attention more to their surroundings, having been more properly cared for. In their current state, it can be near im-possible to worry about their effect on the environment, while at the same time they are trying to survive, or even support a family.

Contention #2-
The U.N. has recognized that poverty reduction should be rated #1 in most important things to deal with according to global welfare. This is in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals.
When comparing two problems, and deciding which one should be fixed first, one must first accomplish which one is going under the most trials. Global poverty reduction needs to be seen to first because it is suffering worse than the environment is. Pollution is rapidly growing around the world, but it is not yet a danger to human survival, as is poverty. Poverty is eating the lives of half of the worlds population all over the world, according to the Global statistics page. The worst part, is that it is spreading. If we can first focus are aim on bettering poverty, environmental protection can be cured equally.

A: While focusing and fixing poverty, we are only fixing the greater spreading problem. Every humans main goal should be survival of our own race. Should our lives as humans be prioritized over by plants? Once poverty is fixed, and humans no longer deal with economic crisis, there would most certainly be room for re-development and growth of our environment.

Contention #3

Poverty is a cause of environmental problems as well. "When combined with other driving forces it also can exaberate local and global environmental problems, contributing to un-sustainable land and resource use" says book writer Kemal Dervis.

Poverty is one of the leading causes of wars (generally in rural areas such as Africa, and the middle east) which provide greatly detrimental benefits for both the environment and the population. Reducing poverty may use alot of money, but in the long shot, we are only gaining money. Once poverty is reduced, individuals can start paying regular taxes (in some cases where such a situation applies). However, there should not be a price or a priority over another human beings life no matter what the situation. And with the evidence I have just stated, poverty reduction can also stop wars, and deaths.

I will conclude by saying, poverty reduction is resorting to human life. We should not prioritize a plant over a human being at any point in time, whether it is the U.N.'s goal anyway or not. I strongly urge you to vote pro, not only because it is regarding and comparing human life, but it is also logically helpful to seek to fix global poverty in front of environmental protection, for reasons of it being one major cause of pollution, and other such problems.
thankyou
Debate Round No. 1
Clockwork

Con

DEFINITIONS

My opponent's definition of poverty fails by two related faults: (One), it fails to stimulate a specific degree in which the resolution should be considered, and (Two), it fails to provide an objective standard by which to weigh who is impoverished (and accordingly who should be given aid). Furthermore, CON's definition is backed by a significant and credible source on the topic at hand, and is clearly superior.

My opponent's definition of prioritize is invalid in relation to the resolution: both issues are obviously important enough to be recognized at large by the UN and both are already given high priority. A better definition would be http://www.ask.com...|30366&o=101760&l=dis "To arrange or deal with in order of importance." In context of the resolution this means that the Affirmative holds the burden to show that the UN should give greater importance to policy dealing with global poverty reduction as opposed to environmental protection.

ANALYSIS

PRO has failed to designate any specific course of action to be taken to combat global poverty. Until alternative action is suggested by PRO, I will assume that PRO wishes to advocate poverty reduction in lieu with the actions of the UNDP, which mainly involves providing aid in the form of education outlets, food, or debt relief.

The resolution specifically assigns PRO the burden of advocating prioritization of GLOBAL poverty reduction. As stated above, the UNDP, the suborganization responsible for combating poverty reduction (among the other Millennium Goals), is currently allotted a biennial 6.3 billion USD. Approximately one billion people are impoverished (http://web.worldbank.org...) in the world today. Assuming the PRO fulfills his burden by stimulating something close to a global averaging of poverty reduction, this gives each of the impoverished people approximately six dollars EACH for TWO YEARS.

How could we use these six dollars? If we use it to directly combat poverty through distribution, the two-year budget would be depleted within three days. The pooling of of these resources to fund educational programs or other community-directed aid programs still leaves any attempts at fighting poverty grossly underfunded, and this is still before the problems which we run into when we consider my contention 2B. Until PRO can demonstrate how he hopes to reduce poverty with the allotted provisions, he has failed to fulfill his burden and you have no choice but to vote CON.

PRO C1

PRO has failed to cite any specific ways in which poverty reduction can help the environment. The aforementioned combating of desertification is a matter of education, this knowledge won't magically be granted to them once they are making $2.50 per day. PRO's C1 is unsubstantiated until he can expand upon this point until it holds enough water to actually be debatable: I cannot be expected to refute all of the broad and unsupported implications of PRO's unspecific language.

PRO C2

This is comparing apples to oranges, as PRO is making a point of poverty reduction being prioritized in an organization that focuses on reducing poverty. He should be comparing the UNDP and the UNEP actions in order to receive a comprehensive viewpoint on the conflict.

PRO must also provide evidence that global poverty is "worse" than the environmental state. Priority must be given to reversing desertification because any attempts to reduce poverty will fail if the poor's newly-found "wealth" will be pointless if there is no food to be bought. As already stated (http://news.mongabay.com...), current rates show that by 2025, Africa will be unable to agriculturally support 75% of it's people. Unless the poor can afford to import enough to support them for two years on the $6 that the UN can provide them, there's going to be lot of hungry people in Africa under a PRO ballot.

PRO C3

PRO invalidly connects poverty reduction to saving lives and fails to consider the effects of land degradation to those who are already hungry. PRO also gets way ahead of himself when he mentions taxing the impoverished, especially considering that the support provided by the UN would not be inflicted as taxes upon those being aided. Further, this argument runs into walls when we consider the significant corruption facing many developing nations as stated in my C2B. PRO must provide some sort of way in which aid can be guaranteed short of an Iraq-style invasion in the name of insignificant poverty reduction.

FURTHER INVALID POINTS

PRO makes a point of stating that poverty reduction is currently prioritized as the #1 objective for the Millennium Development Goals and deserves that position for a reason. This point is irrelevant on two counts: firstly, this resolution is instigated in the obligatory tense ("should be prioritized") as opposed to the present tense (is prioritized). Secondly, my opponent is unfairly comparing goals within the United Nations Development Programme, whose objective is to eradicate poverty and hunger. A valid comparison would involve both the UNDP (http://www.undp.org...) and the United Nations Environment Programme (http://www.unep.org...).

PRO attempts to break down the conflict in the resolution to an issue between saving the lives of the impoverished and saving an endangered species of plant or animal. Unfortunately, such designation is not his duty to name as he is not constructing the Negative case. Most "conflict" as stated in the resolution refers to a simple problem: budgeting. The UN only has so much money to fund into so many programs, and the true issue is which of these "conflicting" potential money sinks would provide the greatest net benefit.

So far, PRO has failed to provide any evidence, statistical or otherwise, to show that benefit should receive prioritization. He has also failed to provide any method in which the meager available funding could combat global poverty and has thus failed to fulfill his BoP. Vote CON.
philosphical

Pro

DEFINITIONS

Both of my defintions were taken from www.dictionary.com
Unless the definitions on that site, are now in-significant and non-credible, I have provided correct and accurate definitions to apply to what i saw fit enough to affirm the resolution with.
My definition of Prioritize (to give a higher priority to) applies perfectly, because we as a nation need to prioritize global poverty reduction, the more important issue, over global environmental protection.

Con states that i have not stated any specific action to reduce poverty reduction at all. However, the whole resolution is the course of action! I could just as easily say the same to con. Con has only told us how the U.N. has in-sufficient supplies to take care of global poverty reduction. Well than if the U.N. has so little to go off of, then they are really not going to make a difference with the environment either. There has been no action plan stated by the con in order to help better the environment. Sure we could spend more money into farming, etc. But the biggest problem with with environment is pollution, and "global warming". How can we stop the sun from rising and setting each and every day? How can we possibly think that by spending more money into different organizations, that pollution will magically just stop. People will continue doing what they do, no matter what. The enviroment is an issue that needs to be taken care of, but we need to look at the bigger issue first.

What we need to look at is, global poverty plagues nearly half of the world's population, where it is the cause of extreme suffering, malnutrition, and even death. Environmental protection, conversely, may not have such a substantially negative effect on the world's population, standards of living, health, and survival. It is far more likely to simply force humans and societies to adapt to slightly different temperatures and whether patterns and to migrate to more accommodating climates. It will certainly cause major problems around the world, and increased suffering for some, but it is not as likely to have as significant of an effect as poverty already has around the world. When it must, the UN should prioritize poverty over environmental protection. We should seek to Environment problems, only after such problems dealing with the lives of human beings are sought to first.
UN money can go straight to the poor in the form of aid, directly addressing a clear human need. Money that goes toward the problem of environmental protection, does not have such a direct return-on-human-need as the effects on human needs are very indirect (protecting humans from changes in temperature and the possibility of negative effects in the future). And, of course, all efforts by the UN to combat environmental protection will do nothing to prevent its eventual occurrence. Because poverty reduction entails lower risks and more direct bang-for-buck, the UN should prioritize it over environmental protection.

Also what my opponent assumes, is that all of the U.N.'s budget in reducing poverty goes straight to the people. This mildly incorrect. It is ridiculous to think that poverty can be handled by simply handing the money directly to work associations. The money used to reduce poverty is used to help develop more substantial work environment and better economic progress in povery suffering areas. These have wide-spread areas that they inflict, therefore, taking care of billions of people suffering from povery, with only 6 billion dollars does not provide as big of a problem. Also WIPO (world intulectual poverty organization) is a large contributor and fully devotional to the UN. They have a current estimate of over 10 billion dollars mainly for securing poverty problems. I would say that money issues are not a problem, as far as taking care of all the other development goals that the U.N. is weighted with.
http://www.wipo.int...

RE: PRO C1
My opponent leaves this argument untouched accusing it of having no 'water'. However it makes perfect sense. How can anyone worry about the environment when they are poverty stricken, and barely surviving? Once poverty is mildly reduced, more effective actions WILL be taken in enviromental protection as far pollution. After poverty has been taken care of on a wide-scale basis, we can focus our efforts in teaching desertification in schools, and invest other methods of bettering it.

RE: PRO C2
Global poverty is the much greater problems for many reasons. Even in your own source https://www.vtunnel.com... It talks about how bad poverty is growing. more than half of the WORLD is dying. Sure maybe we can fix a few problems with it by helping the environment, but how long will that take? This will take years to grow all the plants, and help atmospheric problems etc. Mean while we have people DYING from this plague called poverty. Something needs to be dont and fast. The U.N. has sufficent funds combined with other organizations to fix this problems, and if it means putting of other develepment goals, then by all means we should still proceed.

RE: PRO C3
In this point i am afraid i was mis-understood. Nowhere did i say that we were taxing poverty stricken people, but we already ARE being taxed from the U.N. Where do you think all their money comes from? It is from all the hard working people who belong to the U.N. This is un-arguable because it is already happening. And how could one not consider that suffering from land degredation is not at all considered suffering from poverty? Next would the money used to help poverty be used for anything other than its original purpose? It is another debate, to try and resolve whether the UN is trustworthy with its money or not. And the "Iraq style invasion" has supported hundreds of people, decreased violence, and provided food and shelter for Iraqi people.

RE: FURTHER POINTS
1. It is impossible for me to say anything is fact and have it just be that way. This is simply my opinion of what should be fact, and it is up to the judges decision on whether either side has supported their opinion well enough to their liking.

2. Never did i say anything about "endangered animal species". Either way, again, i cannot construct a neg case. I was simply using the resolution, as i am alotted. Plain and simple the argument was that i think it is more sane to prioritize global poverty reduction before plants.

My opponent goes on to say that i have stated no evidence. But i would like you the voters to read over his first arguements. I do beleive there are no sources whatsoever. There for, this argument "holds no water" as my opponent would say.

Global poverty is slowly eating at the world, and killing unstable families. We need to prioritize this over the environment, because we need to protect human lives. While we are at home in our comfy homes, otheres live in cold shacks, or on streets struggling to find food in dumpsters. Everyon deserves the same basic rights. It is for this reason that my partner and i STRONGLY affirm the resolution, and urge you, the judges, to do like-wise.
thankyou.

BTW clockwork, will we be doing a cross fire? We could dedicate one round each to asking questions, and in the next answer, and ask. Just a thought
Debate Round No. 2
Clockwork

Con

DEFINITIONS

My definitions are backed by the UN and the World Bank, international organizations enormously important to the topics at hand. PRO's definitions are pulled from dictionary.com and cannot be logically applied to the resolution. Because poverty occurs in every country in the world, defining poverty in locally relativistic standards (as PRO did) means that any poverty reduction would be local, not global. The establishment of a poverty line applicable to
global standards is necessary to keep the threshold of poverty reduction stipulated by PRO topical.

TAKING ACTON

I have never stated that PRO had to provide a specific plan to reduce global poverty; however, if he did not mention any plan, then it would be assumed that he would be endorsing the current actions taken by the UNDP to reduce global poverty through the resolution. PRO has thus conceded his backing of current UNDP aid-centered poverty reduction methods. His claim that poverty reduction through aid is less expensive than educational resources used to combat desertification defies common sense, and this extraordinary claim has yet to be backed by any statistics. Once again, there are many different ways of providing poverty aid, and without a model to estimate the costs of aid-based poverty reduction, PRO cannot validly claim that poverty reduction holds greater efficacy than environmental protection.

Actions taken to reduce poverty under the WIPO are extra-resolutional and should be discarded because the UN would be irrelevant in prioritization.

DEFENSE

I seriously wonder if PRO even read my case. His attempts at refutation only attack global warming and pollution reduction efforts, which were not even mentioned in my constructive speech, and he makes no attempt to refute anything remotely concerning the devastating effects of desertification. PRO has made no attacks on the efficacy of desertification reduction or it's significant effect on local stability and reduction to poverty, nor has he presented any refutation of my second contention that does not result in his own BoP falling.

PRO states "It is another debate, to try and resolve whether the UN is trustworthy with its money or not", which is totally irrelevant to my C2B. The corrupt governments are wasting the poverty-aid funds, not the UN. As to the abuse of these funds by government leaders PRO has offered no contest.

Pro states "Well than if the U.N. has so little to go off of, then they are really not going to make a difference with the environment either." Note that if this is the case, PRO has failed to show that poverty reduction should be prioritized and accordingly loses this debate. We shall, however, assume he wishes to act upon his following statement:

PRO's states "Plain and simple the argument was that i think it is more sane to prioritize global poverty reduction before plants"; it is clear PRO understands neither the Negative opposition or it's implications. All arguments against this have been stated in previous rounds and are extended.

CONCLUSION

Poverty is a problem. A significant portion of this problem lies in the inability to obtain adequate food supplies. Desertification limits the agricultural potential of these highly localized food markets, which means fewer people can support themselves through subsistence farming and that food costs will rise due to limited supply. If a food surplus cannot be maintained, people will continue to fail to obtain food, which will render the attempts to reduce poverty ineffective, even when we ignore the limitations stated in my C2. PRO has failed to dismantle my link between the reversing of desertification and the protection of the lives of billions and has even gone so far as to irrelevantly attack pollution and global warming reduction methods. Thus far, the victor is clear. Vote CON.
philosphical

Pro

DEFINITIONS

The con goes on to say my definitions aren't valid because they come from dictionary.com, yet he has not supported this argument as to 'why'. If my definitions can't be logically proven in-accurate, then i see no reason for them not to be taken logically. Especially since the definitions i used weren't exactly crucial to hurting the opponents case, and instead used for strengthening mine. A definition is a definition, and i find it factual to say that the definitions in witch i provided compile in every way to reach the resolution.

TAKING ACTION

The resolution in itself is an action plan. I do not understand how there is any more that can be said on providing food, shelter, money, and resources to people with our given supplies. Combatting desertification correlates with environmental protection and therefore can't be used as its own arguement to this contention. Con goes on to say that "PRO cannot validly claim that poverty reduction holds greater efficacy than environmental protection". My whole case though is proof of poverty being a greater problem then environmental protection. If it is impossible to argue that one should be prioritized over the other, then what would be the point of this debate?

Con states "Actions taken to reduce poverty under the WIPO are extra-resolutional and should be discarded because the UN would be irrelevant in prioritization"

I would like to remind the judges, and my opponent, that WIPO is a branch belonging to the UN, as stated earlier. The resolution specifically refers to the UN, therfor this arguement is supported entirely.

DEFENCE

Apparently my opponent is un-educated to the fact that that global warming and pollution, are effective to the environment. While adding those points, after already combatting desertification and lessened water, my opponent continues to say i have invalid arguements. Adding things to an already debated subject in no way afflicts the points i am making, however. Instead by not arguing my points, we must assume that the con agrees with the pro.

RE: pro states 1:
My contradicts himself in this segmant. If we are talking about the UN spending its money, then what need is government issues to be brought into debate? My opponent was arguing that we wouldn't be spending money on what the resolution expects. However the dabate is on priority. I could just as easily say that the government would mess around with the money needed for environmental protection.

RE: pro states 2:

This in no way whatsoever combats at all what i was saying. If the UN doesn't have enough money to support poverty, how is it going to have any better luck at all with environmental protection? My opponent has failed to show us, how actions can be taken to help resolve environmental protection, and has only worried about showing how pro can't succeed the resolution.

RE: pro states 3:

This arguement has been viewed in an unintentional way. Humans everywhere are suffering from poverty as i have said many times before, and the con has in no way showed us how helping the environment first, will be better in prioritization over the lives of billions of people.

CONCLUSION

Con has left more than half of my arguements from round two, un argued. This leads to an obvious assumption that, the opponent either agrees with, or doesn't have an answer to any of these arguemnts.
- The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty
- Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first
- We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq
- Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts
- Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurence

Also further rebuttals to con were left un-opposed.
All this must be looked at when judging this debate.
It is for all the reasons i have supplied, that global poverty, the much greater problem, must be seen to first in order to save the lives of billions of people.
Thus i strongly urge a vote for pro.
thankyou
-philosophical
Debate Round No. 3
Clockwork

Con

DEFINITIONS

I never stated that my opponent's definitions aren't valid; they simply don't work in the context of the resolution. By defining poverty in locally relativistic standards my opponent has made it seem like he is dealing with local (not global) poverty. If my opponent insists on using his non-topical definitions, that's fine by me.

TAKING ACTION

The resolution only acts as a call to action to the extent of the prioritization of poverty reduction (or environmental protection). Neither side is required to stipulate any plan; however, by not providing one, PRO has backed the current, aid-based actions of the UNDP. Such backing wouldn't be a problem if PRO had put forth any sort of evidence or reasoning supporting their specific actions.

LET'S MAKE A PLAN

Both PRO and CON must back certain routes to take in order to fulfill their respective advocacy. PRO has attempted to link the CON position to choosing "plants over poor people". This is both irrelevant and abusive to the purpose of the debate. I could just as easily say that PRO plans to reduce poverty by burning money so that the impoverished would have something to cook their food on; however, my saying so doesn't mean this is supported by PRO, not does such a situation have to be supported by PRO.

Both sides have the ability to designate specific actions to support poverty reduction or environmental protection. I have advocated the reduction of desertification. PRO has done absolutely nothing to refute such a problem. All points mentioned in my initial Contention 1 have been dropped.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

In Public Forum debate as with most other conventional forms of debate, the Affirmative side holds a burden to fulfill the resolution. In context to this specific debate, PRO must demonstrate why global poverty reduction should be prioritized over environmental protection.

So far, PRO has demonstrated that poverty is a problem. In response: so what? People breaking the law is a problem, but neither the UN nor any sovereign body has the capacity to completely eliminate crime. Likewise, the issue of poverty is, as already stated, far too enormous to be reasonably impacted by the UN.

PRO cannot make arguments that invalidate his burden of proof because such arguments would cause him to lose the debate. Unfortunately, almost all of his arguments have fallen into such categorization.

In "Pro states 1", PRO argues that the administrations of developing countries cannot be trusted with funds to combat global poverty OR environmental protection. Because this invalidates PRO's BoP, the point is null.

In "Pro states 2", PRO advocated that the UN is too poorly funded to fight either poverty or environmental harms. This again invalidates his BoP and nullifies his point.

CONCLUSION(s)

My opponent states that I have left several points uncontested:

- The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty
Actually, this would be a point for PRO to make, and he hasn't proven it.

- Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first
PRO fails to demonstrate

- We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq
- Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts
Totally irrelevant.

- Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurrence
This is actually the first time PRO has brought up this point, and not only is it totally incorrect but it is further unsupported by any sort of (lack of) evidence or common sense.

Other than showing that poverty is a problem, PRO has done absolutely nothing to support his case or to directly attack mine, instead preferring to attack straw-man cases that are totally irrelevant to CON advocacy. All of my arguments have either been dropped by my opponent or opposed in a way that still leaves CON the victor due to a failed BoP by PRO, and PRO's case was insufficient to fulfilling his burden in the first place. Vote CON.

New arguments brought forth by PRO in the concluding round should be disregarded. Thank you for reading.
philosphical

Pro

DEFINITION

I am really lost as to how the definition isn't in context of the revolution. A definition is a definition, you can't just change that as we may wish, to better prove a point. Definitions can only be argued for what they are, fact. And using them as evidence, should not be confined to any specific 'context'. But apparently my definitions are non-topical even though they come from both an internet dictionary site, and the real webster. Moving on.

TAKING ACTION

Again, as i have said, and was apparently not percieved, the resolution in itself is the proposition of action. My oppoent must tell me how it isn't before this can be a valid arguement. The topic being a resolution, means that is is debating on either side to a call to action. So basically, whatever side wins, would be the call to action, Thus the meaning of "resolved"

LET'S MAKE A PLAN

My opponent continues to not make virtually any sense with this arguement. Debate is the arguing of opinions. I have argued mine, yet my opponent maintains that it is not because it is my opinion. my opponent stating "PRO plans to reduce poverty by burning money so that the impoverished would have something to cook their food on"
Would be perfectly fine, because again, it is your peresonal opinion. Whether any one agrees with it or not is an entirely different and irrelevant story.
My oppoent again jumps to the conclusion that i have dropped the desertification point. However a simple read through of my earlier arguements, will show you that this arguement has indeed been refuted several times. Instead, it has been my opponent who has not combatted that desertification is no extra from anything else that applies to environmental protection. Again it is the same concept, and must be argued on a totally higher scale for it to hold any validity.

RE: THE BURDEN OF PROOF
I could just as easily say the same to my opponent. Who are you to say say that environmental protection isn't just as bad of a problem? This is the whole point for this entire debate. I just don't understand this arguement at all. But like you said, poverty is too enourmous of a problem. This is the exact reason why it should be fixed first!

Other minor problems, need to be seen to secondary. We need to be looking at the bigger issues, and as the CON as just stated for us all to see, global poverty is a huge problem that needs to be taken care of first. It's only a matter of time before poverty spreads to not only rural areas, but other more sophisticated areas of the world.

the way i see it, the arguements in pro states 1 and 2, are still effective until proven wrong. Again in which have not been done, not only here but in many cases through-out this debate.

RE: CONCLUSION

- The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty
My opponents states
"Actually, this would be a point for PRO to make, and he hasn't proven it".
I would like to remind my opponent and the readers that that I have provided a full arguement on how the U.N. has not only its main branch of money, but those of its supportives such as WEPO. AGAIN an arguement left un-touched.
- Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first
"PRO fails to demonstrate"
Okay, but how is this so, when every thing i have written falls under this category?
- We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq
- Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts
"Totally irrelevant."
Okay then, in that case, why doesn't my opponent tell me how they are irrelevant?
i would like to remind the viewers that CON brought up BOTH of these arguements to begin with.
- Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurrence
"This is actually the first time PRO has brought up this point, and not only is it totally incorrect but it is further unsupported by any sort of (lack of) evidence or common sense.
It is not a new arguement. This was already discussed and left entirely alone in a previous arguement. As have been the case with most of my arguements. Ratherr then telling me how my arguements are incorrent, my opponent quite often just jumps to the assumption that they ARE invalid without any further proof of explaination. This is a good thing to note when voting on this debate.

My opponent has left most, if not all, of my points and contentions literally untouched in the last few arguements. He proceeds to tell me how my arguements are in-valid, but has not yet showed any evidence as to HOW they are, as was not the case with me.

I would like to end by reminding you the voters, and the world, that poverty is affecting living human beings. While it may not be us that have to experience the hardships of poverty, it is easy to say that it can wait. But by looking at the world through their shoes, i am sure things would be 100% different in our oppinions. People are dying from this. People are suffering from this. We as humans should feel obligated to provide for each other and do all that we can to ensure the stability of our race. It is for these reasons, that i believe the vote should be PRO. I strongly urge you the judge and the voters, to vote my parnter and I, for all of the above reasons.
Thankyou.
-philosophical
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
you present facts SUPPORTING your opinions. And i did just that, therefor, that doesn't make any sense
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
I'd have to disagree with your assumption that debate is "all about interjecting your personal opinions". If I went to a tournament and argued "Environmental protection should be prioritized because I think so", there's a good chance I'd be laughed out of the room. You should be presenting facts, not opinions.
Posted by deadlysmurfed1 7 years ago
deadlysmurfed1
the CON wins
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
well seeing how debate is all about 'interjecting your personal opinions' i don't see how it isn't relevant for me to tell you that it is sane for a persons life to come before a plants. But what you find relevant to debate is really up to you. I'm just saying it probably doesn't look to good to the voters when you don't argue half of your opponents points.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Heads up, this IS a real debate. Instead of interjecting your personal opinions, you should probably wait to see how the readers/judges of this debate view my rebuttal.

For the record, I rebutted your points that were either constructive to your case or relevant to mine. Please don't expect me to argue against your "plants vs. people" point if it has nothing to do with my case.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
wow. nice rebuttal. too lazy to refute even half of of my arguements. If this were a real deabate, you would be poorly looked upon by the judge
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
uh yes i have rebutted all your points. and you didn't understand me. i said you can INCLUDE questions in your argument.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
You can't BRING up new arguments. My spelling fails.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
I'm not scrapping a whole round of argumentation so we can ask a few questions. Not to mention that you can't being up new arguments in the last round and have so far rebutted none of my contentions.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
or we could just include the questions in the debate round and leave a little less slop for the viewers to read
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by freakwars 7 years ago
freakwars
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ToTheMax 7 years ago
ToTheMax
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by AubreyHigdon 7 years ago
AubreyHigdon
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Baileywoods 7 years ago
Baileywoods
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
ClockworkphilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70