The Instigator
TheOutspokenOne
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
andre
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Should the U.N. care more about homeless people or the environment?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
andre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,879 times Debate No: 9575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

TheOutspokenOne

Con

Resolved: In crisis, should the United Nations prioritize global poverty or environmental factors?
andre

Pro

I suppose a pretty landscape is much easier to look at than struggling people. Hardly a consolation.
A population larger than that of China, the most populous nation, live in extreme poverty, living with less than $1.25 a day.
When you add up those who live with more than that but still struggle - well, my, don't we have a problem.

Comparatively, the environment is flourishing. It is relatively cheap to repair, as we've seen, there are thousands of reserves around the world that strongly protect the environment, with harsh penalties for violations of the protective laws.

People are simply more important - they can feel a long death coming behind them and destroying them. Trees can't. I'm all for the protection of the environment. But we have to prioritise.
Debate Round No. 1
TheOutspokenOne

Con

Resolved: In crisis, should the United Nations prioritize global poverty or environmental factors?

Contention 1: Yes there are minor things in nature that could fix themselves, but a forest cure itself of deforestation.

Point 1: Yeah our planet is resilient in some ways, true, but if we do not take care of it now, then how are the 'hoboes' supposed to even survive long enough to at least beg for food/money?The fact of the matter is that the planet is much greater in signifigance than humans are. We are merely inhabiting it.

Point 2 : Furthermore, some, not all, but some homeless people are homeless because of very fixable problems (i.e. their attitudes) that can be managed if the government could provide a means of conseling for that individual. Needless to say, occasionally it the individual's own fault for becoming homeless.
andre

Pro

Point 1: Again, the environment is already strongly protected. It won't, ever, disappear completely.

And about significance, if you can say that the environment is more important than humans are, I disagree for two reasons - firstly, who's then to say anything is significant, practically, there is no significance for anything. And in fact, the only reason you provided for the environment's significance was that it was necessary to the survival of humans! Secondly, it is in no way necessary entirely for the survival of humans. Of course, some is, and we are protecting what we need.

If we can consider anything significant, they are humans, because they feel the most pain of all. I don't particularly prize humans over animals, and I do care for their pain and hope to achieve some equality among species, but in choosing where to help, if such a choice must be made, I still vote human.

What this is really about is that you, well, just don't like poor people, or perhaps are just sick of paying taxes for them.

2: Never, ever, is homelessness the fault of the individual. Never. Always, there is a reason - abuse from their parents, disability... but mostly it all comes back to the fact that we live in a society, an organised system that deliberately creates super rich and the super poor, and a whole lot of in-between categories. I suppose it's the poor people's fault all of society lets this happen, wants it to happen, and makes it happen? I don't blame poor people, nor do I blame anyone at all for living under capitalism, which impedes hope, destroys dreams, and crushes innovation. But so long as people keep accepting the system that they fail to realise is actually hurting them, depending who your parents were or what your face looks like, the system will thrive and poor people will continue to exist.

However, some capitalist nations at least have the decency to lend a hand to those who are struggling. The UN, as well as all of us, must continue to do the
Debate Round No. 2
TheOutspokenOne

Con

Contention 2: The planet is a vessel, and we are all merely inhabiting it.
Point 1: Just because their are certain aspects of the environment will fix themselves, doesn't mean that we should destroy the parts that do the loving care of an environment-respecting human. By smoking cigarettes (and flicking them all over the place for that matter), carelessly tossing oil into the ocean, using gas for power instead of solar, and other things, we are destroying our beautiful mother earth. I've never heard of any other species doing that. William Ruckleshaus once said that "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." and that is the truth. The environment could improve drastically if we all just swallowed our pride and thought what's best for everyone, not ourselves.

Point 2: Believe it or not, there are some people who are homeless because of their crappy attitudes. If someone refuses to listen to their boss, and back-talks him every day, what happens? They get fired. When they get fired, the lose an income. With no income you have no food, car, phone, house, and in some cases a marriage. Some say money isn't everything, but it's only the rich who say that.
andre

Pro

1: I don't condone nor defend people's careless acts but these can seldom be controlled by the United Nations. It can be a national government's responsibility to not make destructive acts against the environment, as well as an individual's, but these issues take much less money than it does the feed the poor. So, it is something that should be prioritised: the UN should care more about homeless people.

2: The outcome is still the result of capitalistic influences. Controlling people's places in society. And even if it were not, at least the person clearly had the knowledge that purposely performing poorly would hurt them - they accepted that they would be homeless. My point was no-one who is homeless and hates it, and did not get there on purpose, could possibly have it be their fault without someone else, even society at large, to blame.

The UN, if it truly is a humanitarian organisation, more importantly one with mercy for human beings, simply cannot prioritise anything over the welfare, safety, or the need for basics, of people. You would not like to struggle the way billions of people have to every day. Anyone with even a scintilla of empathy and humanity in them cannot allow for people to suffer needlessly. The UN certainly cannot.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Using Utilitarian logic "For the greather good" it should be Cons win.

If she had argued that.
Posted by desiflavour 7 years ago
desiflavour
Its nice to know that you care for the environment so much, TheOutspokenOne. Buts lets face it, most people by nature are anthropocentric and issues directly rated to them would always be a higher priority -- to the UN or others concerned.
Posted by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
ha funny. this is our classes debate topic right now :} (p.s. poverty won :P)
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Never, ever, is homelessness the fault of the individual. Never." -Pro
That's ludicrous! So no one chooses to be homeless? No one? There are so many that do. Not all, not even the majority; but there are many that do. It is a choice. It may not be a logical one but it is a choice. After some point (i.e. adulthood) one cannot continue to blame everyone else (society, mommy & daddy, etc.) for their situation. People do stupid things to themselves ALL the time.
Posted by TheOutspokenOne 7 years ago
TheOutspokenOne
I am for the enviromental side
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
What is your stance on the issue? You have failed to mention if you are for environmental protection or poverty prioritization.
Posted by Chihuahuadogz 7 years ago
Chihuahuadogz
I might accept;although, it would be my first debate here. I'm not sure I want to start with that subject. I have to do it anyway for public forum though..... I might take it, but I might not... ^_^
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 7 years ago
1gambittheman1
TheOutspokenOneandreTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by 1-2-3 7 years ago
1-2-3
TheOutspokenOneandreTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheOutspokenOneandreTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheOutspokenOneandreTied
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 silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
TheOutspokenOneandreTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14