The Instigator
AbandonAngel89
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,277 times Debate No: 10239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

AbandonAngel89

Con

Global warming is a threat to our existence as human beings on this Earth; therefore it should always be our top priority.

If we try to save the environment before we focus directly on poverty, we will end up solving poverty in the process of saving the environment by producing green jobs and ending the zero sum game that traps developing nations in cycles of poverty.

If we do not focus our attention on the environment now the effects will be far worse than the current effects of poverty, there is no way around it. That's why we negate the resolution resolved When in Conflict the we should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.
Global warming is a higher priority than poverty, because if we do not solve Global Warming first more poverty and deaths will result. Global Warming will melt glaciers all around the world causing severe water shortages. According to Emily Wax with The Toronto Star on August 8th , 2009 In 50 years the Glaciers in the Himalayas will melt cutting off 1.3 billion people's water supply, the most basic need for human beings, killing them all.

Shirley V. Scott from Melbourne Journal of International Law on October 2008 stated that, Another thing that the melting glaciers will do is cause sea levels to rise putting many coastal cities under water, leaving no room for the residents of those regions. For example if the sea levels rise New York will go under water, leaving about 20 million people with out homes or jobs.

The bacteria that would develop in the abandon areas could bring us into a new Dark Age killing ridiculous numbers of people all across the world before we could ever create an antidote for them. It wouldn't be just one disease ether it would be more then half a dozen. Anyone the new diseases didn't kill it would send them into poverty from all the things that they would need to buy to keep them from getting sick or there medical bills if they did get sick, if they survived.
Our second contention is that if you start to focus on environmental solutions, in the end they will benefit all of us and help reduce poverty. According to Michael Renner with the World Watch Institution on July 8th, 2008, the wind power industry already employs 300 thousand people. The solar power industry employs about 800 thousand people. More then 1 million people could be employed in new biomass and biofuel sectors. Green jobs have the potential to put millions and millions of people to work in the green energy sector as developing nations move toward green energy. More people employed means that more people have an income, more income equals less poverty. Also, because these are renewable energy sources these jobs will always exist, unlike oil which will eventually run out leaving millions unemployed.

The other economic benefit of environmental solutions is that we can end the struggle for energy resources that currently separates the rich from the poor. In the status quo countries compete for a limited supply of oil. The riches nations (like the US) are able to buy the lion's share of oil leaving developing countries unable to tap the energy they need to develop their economies. With renewable sources of energy every country could produce the energy they need without competing with the developing world, ending the zero-sum energy game and allowing developing nations to emerge into a bright future with a high standard of living and minimal negative impact on the environment.

As you can see, the key to solving the problems of the developing world is to invest in a green future. That is why I stand in firm opposition to today's resolution.
Nails

Pro

"If we try to save the environment before we focus directly on poverty, we will end up solving poverty in the process of saving the environment by producing green jobs and ending the zero sum game that traps developing nations in cycles of poverty."

--This is an example of when they are not in conflict.

---

As for the middle part, I hope my opponent will post the links to sources that say these things that she claims. I don't see a new disease-ridden Dark Age on the immenent horizon.

---

"The other economic benefit of environmental solutions is that we can end the struggle for energy resources that currently separates the rich from the poor."

I do believe that this would fall on my side of the resolution. Ending rich/poor disparity = global poverty reduction.

---

My only contention is that prioritizing poverty reduction makes economic sense.

The environment in general has the ability to 'bounce back'. For countless years the earth has been plagued by natural disasters, plagues, droughts, people, etc. After all of this, the environment comes out fine. Nature adapts rather well to attacks on it and survives.

On the other hand, poverty tends to create more poverty. Entire continents like Africa fell behind the rest of the community and from there look how they've ended up. Most minority communities in the United States came here with very little money. 100 and 200 years later, look where they've ended up. Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities. What example can you give of a society where poverty just worked itself out? There are none.

Therefore we can come to the conclusion that; when in conflict we ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because it is a more urgent need and will compound more quickly if not fixed. If you had 2 debts, both of $1,000 dollars, which would you pay off first? The one that increases by $100 dollars annually, or the one that decreases by $100 dollars?
Debate Round No. 1
AbandonAngel89

Con

My opponent brings up a good point about how these people live in "Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities" well this is true that won't matter if they are not alive any more because of globe warming and other natural disasters.
---
They also say that the environment it always bounced back to anything that has happened, but you have to think about the fact that the earth has never had to deal with the pollution and other technologies that humans have developed. as well as the population rate that its known today.
---
My opponent asks where I get my diseases information from, this came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov...
---
Nails

Pro

My opponent's link doesn't say anything. It's just the CDC's homepage. Her claims that we face imminent extinction are still completely unwarranted. All of my arguments still stand, then, since her entire rebuttal is 'that doesn't matter 'cuz we all 'bout to die.'

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
AbandonAngel89

Con

In this 3rd round the is really two main things you should look are.
---
To please my opponent I will drop my argument about the diseases, but we still have to issues with the fact that the glaciers will melt causing the sea levels to rise. Also the fact that if we let this continue all our fresh water will run into the ocean and we will have no water to drink, and we all know that water is a basic need for not just humans but animals and other organisms on the earth. If my opponent brings up the fact that we can just use desalinization methods but that is ridiculously expensive and time consuming.
---
We all so have the issue the fact that the places that have the most poverty in them are at the end of the food chain, that they are falling short in the zero-sum energy game that is happening with energy. if we switched to green jobs then we would reduce and ultimately get rid of the zero-sum game that is happening. Green jobs will do this, and it will give jobs to the people in poverty. Even if they don't have an education, they can work as a janitor or something like that. There are many small jobs that they can do. Also, because these are renewable energy sources these jobs will always exist, unlike oil which will eventually run out leaving millions unemployed.
---
That is why I have to stand in firm opposition of the resolution.
Nails

Pro

"Also the fact that if we let this continue all our fresh water will run into the ocean"

You mean like it has been doing for thousands of years via rivers?

Don't worry. Al Gore invented this thing called the 'water cycle' to save the environment. Through the nifty concepts of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, that ocean water is no longer wasted; it comes right back to us.

---

"if we switched to green jobs then we would reduce and ultimately get rid of the zero-sum game that is happening. Green jobs will do this, and it will give jobs to the people in poverty."

In such cases, poverty and the environment are not in conflict. This has nothing to do with the resolution. Not to mention, CON dropped this in her last speech.

---

Voters, I provided one simple contention, that prioritizing poverty over environment makes economic sense. CON never remotely tried to rebut this. It is the reason, uncontested by my opponent, that you vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I wish people didn't come to DDO simply for practice in their real life tournaments. Can't you people prepare for that on your own?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
AbandonAngel89NailsTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by AbandonAngel89 7 years ago
AbandonAngel89
AbandonAngel89NailsTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
AbandonAngel89NailsTied
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 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 Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
AbandonAngel89NailsTied
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