The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Resolved, when in conflict; the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 10/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,889 times Debate No: 9840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The Secretary General of the United Nations Ban-Ki Moon said: "Climate change is the preeminent geopolitical issue of our time."It is because we stand with the United Nations that we, the con, negate today's resolution which states: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental problems.
Contention 1-The environment is an imminent danger to the world's population, and the United Nations has the capacity to effectively combat this issue.
Sub Clause A- Global Warming, in particular is a great threat to our contemporary society
-According to a team of health and climate scientists at the World Health Organization and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, there are 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually due to climate change. In their conclusion, they stated that the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria can be attributed to global warming.
-It creates conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition, and increases the likelihood of heat waves and floods, all of which can be avoided by further sustaining our global environment.
-The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change reported that more than 52,000 Europeans died from heat in the summer of 2003, marking one of the worst climate disasters in Western history.
-In France alone, 15,000 elderly men and women died. The panel concluded that the cause was Global Warming and would reoccur if action was not taken.

Sub Clause B- The United Nations can effectively sustain the environment.
-There currently exists the /united Nations Environment Programme or UNEP which specifically coordinates environmental activities, assists developing countries in implementing sound policies and encourages sustainable development through positive environmental practices.
-The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change contains, in particular, the Kyoto Protocol which establishes legally binding commitment for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Thus far, it has set limitations for Japan, China and the United States, producing global success.
-The Copenhagen Protocol is the upcoming event to extend this agreement.
-History has proven that the United Nations has efficient capabilities to sustain the environment, and can take serious strides toward environmental protection if it were prioritized.
Contention 2- Environmental Protection conflicts with global poverty reduction and must be prioritized first.
Sub Clause A-Climate change challenges the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
-The Millennium Development Goals were set by the United Nations to achieve by 2015, HOWEVER, the environment directly conflicts with poverty eradication and sustainable development objectives, and must be prioritized first.
-Unless concrete and urgent steps are taken to reduce vulnerability and enhance the capacity of poor people, it will be impossible to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
-Simply put, environmental objectives must be acquired first, or else poverty cannot be eradicated or even considered.
Sub Clause B- Environmental Protection prevents the additional threat of strains on the livelihoods and coping strategies of the poor.
-Climate change reduces poor people's livelihood assets, for example, are health, access to water, homes, and infrastructure, According to the World Health Organization.
-The Greenguard Environmental Institute, a report published in September 2009 states that climate change alters the path and rate of economic growth due to changes in natural systems and resources, infrastructure, and labor productivity.
-Jeff McNeil of the Department of environmental Studies states that, "In particular in Africa, food security is expected to worsen."
-Without more environmental protection, further reduced asse4tes to drinking water will negatively affect the health of poor people, and will pose a real threat to food security in many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
-For these and more, we the con negate today's resolution.


I would like to start off by thanking Con for challenging me to this debate.
I do LD debate but I think this is an interesting PF topic.


Contention 1) Con says here that the environment is a danger to the world's population and the UN can effectively combat this.

Sub Clause A) As to whether or not global warming is causing all of these deaths and illnesses, I will currently not refute this until Con proves that global warming is caused by humans. If I can prove that it is not caused by humans then it is irrelevant and we must affirm the resolution. I will talk about why global warming is not caused by humans under sub clause B.

I would like to say here that according to UNICEF 25,000 children die each day from poverty. Also 27-28% of all children in developing countries are underweight or stunted.
Every year there are 350-500 million cases of malaria and 1 million deaths from it per year. 90% of malaria deaths are in Africa and 80% of all malaria cases are African children. So while global warming may cause some harm the number of deaths caused by poverty is much higher.

Sub Clause B) Here Con states that the UN can effectively sustain the environment.
I would like to make two points here: one that the United Nations can not effectively sustain the environment and two that global warming is not caused by humans.
Con talks about UNEP, but the UNEP has not made any significant or monumental impacts on helping the environment.
Con also talks about the Kyoto Protocol and says it has brought global success, but this is not true. The Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by the U.S. who at the time was the leading emitter of fossil fuels. Even though China ratified it they have now surpassed the United States and are number one in the amount of fossil fuels they emit. So the Kyoto Protocol has done nothing and carbon dioxide levels have only continued to rise. Con also talks about the Copenhagen Protocol, but one this has not been ratified so it doesn't count for anything and two it is not likely to be ratified here in the U.S. because of how it violates our rights. Lastly Con says that history has proven that the UN has the capabilities to sustain the environment. But as of now the UN has not made any major impact on the environment and I don't believe they will because countries do not want to hinder their own economy for the sake of the environment.

I will now talk about why global warming is not caused by humans. "I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably expected to occur in the future." "It all collapses into a failed theory when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with PhDs, have signed a statement debunking global warming." "In the 1980s and 1990's the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed. But in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not happening. There is no significant warming from CO2." These are quotes from John Coleman in his testimony before congress and what he says proves that global warming is not caused by humans. Therefore because it is not caused by humans it is of no use to try and prevent it and thus it should not be prioritized over global poverty reduction.

Contention 2) Con argues that environmental protection conflicts with global poverty reduction so it must be prioritized first.

Sub Clause A) Here Con says again and again that we can not meet Millennium Development Goals because the environment conflicts with them. However, Con does not say what these goals are and why there are important nor does he state how the environment conflicts with them.

Sub Clause B) Here Con says that environmental protection prevents additional threats on those in poverty. Con says "Climate change reduces poor people's livelihood assets, for example, are health, access to water, homes, and infrastructure, According to the World Health Organization." I fail to see how protecting the environment will give those in poverty better homes and infrastructures. Better health, water, and homes are all things that would be helped in poverty reduction which is why it must be prioritized. Con also says that due to climate change the economy would also change. I would like to bring back what I said earlier that climate change is not controlled by humans, so even if climate does affect the economy it does not matter. However, when fighting poverty this would allow the economy to improve. Finally Con gives the quote "In particular in Africa, food security is expected to worsen." This quote and the information about the economy impact are found in a UNDP report. This very report says that the way to combat these environmental impacts is to do vocational training, and community projects such as canal digging. Those are specific examples of global poverty reduction, so the very source Con is using works against him.

Overall because climate changed is not caused by humans it is useless to try and fight it and in the past and up to now the UN has failed to make any impacts on the environment therefore we must affirm the resolution.

Sources: (This is a link to a Google search and the first link on the page is the study which Con used in his case.)
Debate Round No. 1


Tomato1594 forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


Tomato1594 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF