The Instigator
AbandonAngel89
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mcol
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

When in conflict, the UN should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protections

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,654 times Debate No: 10297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

AbandonAngel89

Pro

We will be using NFL rules. (NFL Rules - Round 1 a Case, Round 2 Question and answer, Round 3 Rebutal, Round 4 question and answer, Round 5 Summery and final focas) everything else it pretty much free rain. Good luck...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dom Helda Camara said "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Poverty is more important then environmental problems because it's something we are facing here and now not some hypothetical issue that may happen or may not happen.

We have to focus on poverty first because if we don't it doesn't matter even if we do try to make green jobs or save the environment because the people that we would need to fill the positions in that job would all be dead from poverty.

Our first argument is that Poverty Trumps over environmental problems because we do not focus on poverty first we would be letting millions die for no cause at all. If people live in poverty then they can't supply basic needs to help them survive in the world, if they can not get basic needs such as food and water then they will die. According to the UNICEF 25,000 kids die a day, A DAY, that means 9,125,000 kids die in a year. That does not include the death rate for adults. 10.6 million Died in 2003 from poverty before they reached the age of 5 (that's the same as the children population in France, Germany, Greece, and Italy.

Diseases are another thing that contributes to deaths among people in poverty. 350-500 million cases of malaria alone are reported a year, with over a million fatalities. Malaria can easily be prevented by a vaccine, but people in poverty cant afford the vaccine, endangering the people around them. 2.2 million Children die each year because they are not immunized.

Our second argument is that poverty is a huge issues much bigger then environmental issues. Global Issues states that there are 2.2 billion kids in the world; 1 billion of them live in poverty (that's 1 for every 2 Children). 640 million don't that adequate shelter (1 in 3), 400 million are with out access to safe water (1 in 5), and 270 million have no access to heath services (1 in 7). With no access to health services people in poverty are putting the other people around them at risk, for example if a child in poverty as Aid's if he does not have access to heath services they have a better chance of not knowing they have it, that gives them a higher risk of dyeing from the dieses(3 million died in 2004 from Aids/Hivs), or giving it to another person that they may have intercourse with because if they live in poverty they more then likely don't have the money to go get protection. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century not knowing how to read or write. 72 million children of primary school age do not attend any school.. This is why we need to help them. We need to help poverty come to an end or in the end there will be such a big gab between the rich and the poor that this issue with poverty will not be able to be reversed, in 1992 there was 72 people in poverty to 1 person in wealth.

For all these reasons I stand firmly resolved in today's resolution when in conflict the united nations should prorates global poverty reduction over environmental protection.
mcol

Con

Five rounds is a bit much. Bypass until the last one, please. then post what you just did- I didn't even bother reading it.
Debate Round No. 1
AbandonAngel89

Pro

we will do 3 then...k
mcol

Con

only two please
Debate Round No. 2
AbandonAngel89

Pro

no 3...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dom Helda Camara said "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Poverty is more important then environmental problems because it's something we are facing here and now not some hypothetical issue that may happen or may not happen.

We have to focus on poverty first because if we don't it doesn't matter even if we do try to make green jobs or save the environment because the people that we would need to fill the positions in that job would all be dead from poverty.

Our first argument is that Poverty Trumps over environmental problems because we do not focus on poverty first we would be letting millions die for no cause at all. If people live in poverty then they can't supply basic needs to help them survive in the world, if they can not get basic needs such as food and water then they will die. According to the UNICEF 25,000 kids die a day, A DAY, that means 9,125,000 kids die in a year. That does not include the death rate for adults. 10.6 million Died in 2003 from poverty before they reached the age of 5 (that's the same as the children population in France, Germany, Greece, and Italy.

Diseases are another thing that contributes to deaths among people in poverty. 350-500 million cases of malaria alone are reported a year, with over a million fatalities. Malaria can easily be prevented by a vaccine, but people in poverty cant afford the vaccine, endangering the people around them. 2.2 million Children die each year because they are not immunized.

Our second argument is that poverty is a huge issues much bigger then environmental issues. Global Issues states that there are 2.2 billion kids in the world; 1 billion of them live in poverty (that's 1 for every 2 Children). 640 million don't that adequate shelter (1 in 3), 400 million are with out access to safe water (1 in 5), and 270 million have no access to heath services (1 in 7). With no access to health services people in poverty are putting the other people around them at risk, for example if a child in poverty as Aid's if he does not have access to heath services they have a better chance of not knowing they have it, that gives them a higher risk of dyeing from the dieses(3 million died in 2004 from Aids/Hivs), or giving it to another person that they may have intercourse with because if they live in poverty they more then likely don't have the money to go get protection. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century not knowing how to read or write. 72 million children of primary school age do not attend any school.. This is why we need to help them. We need to help poverty come to an end or in the end there will be such a big gab between the rich and the poor that this issue with poverty will not be able to be reversed, in 1992 there was 72 people in poverty to 1 person in wealth.

For all these reasons I stand firmly resolved in today's resolution when in conflict the united nations should prorates global poverty reduction over environmental protection.
mcol

Con

I will spend this round presenting my argument, and the next refuting my opponent.
================================================================================================================

I stand in firm negation of the resolution that "when in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection." To prove my point, I'd like to bring up several contentions. My first contention is that poverty reduction is not a top priority. While we do agree that it is a major problem we do not agree that it should be prioritized over environmental protection. If our climate stays on the track it has been, we will suffer from more natural disasters, which in turn will kill more people and increase poverty. We are also on track for another Ice Age, and you know that movie called Ice Age? It won't be anything like that, because that movie had humans. Our next Ice Age won't have any humans, because mankind will be extinct, unless we embark on a path of cleaning the earth and changing the climate. So in the long run, sure, we could save thousands of people by giving them homes and food and clothing, or we could save trillions over the course of the years if we start protecting the environment. Next I would like to point out that environmental protection is paramount. What many people don't realize is that the U.N. is debating over a multitude of topics right now. These topics range from humanitarian affairs to international law to business to peace and security. However, at the top of that list is environmental protection, headed by the UNEP, or United Nations Environment Program. Amongst the topics that this program is discussing are climate change, ecosystem management, and environmental governance. Environmental protection for sure is the top priority, and the biggest problem mankind has faced in its history. Whatever we do now to harm the environment will harm us in the future generations. Likewise, what we do to help the environment will pay off and help using the years to come. The environment and the ecosystems we could fix contain all things necessary for life; living without it is literally living without air, protection from the sun, and natural resources. Today, it is obvious that such large changes, such as degradation of resources and climate change, threaten both the economies, but also to the stability, health, and survival of human communities. Knowing this should cause us to find some way to seek a sustainable development and start to fix and protect the environment. Finally, environmental degradation destroys peace. As a peace-keeping organization, the U.N. must prioritize environmental protection because it is a threat to peace. While it may seem unlikely, crime goes up when the environment is down. Last year, when the earth didn't provide enough oil to supply the demand, it became scarcer and pricier, and others began to siphon gas from the tanks when the owners of the vehicle weren't around. And so, when so many people are dying from skin cancer caused by UV rays, or drowning in tsunamis or having their property and all of their possessions whipped away from them by a tornado, and it can be changed, making a safer planet for everyone, it must be done, and this is why me and my partner still stand in firm affirmation of the resolution brought to us today.
Debate Round No. 3
AbandonAngel89

Pro

AbandonAngel89 forfeited this round.
mcol

Con

mcol forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AbandonAngel89

Pro

we will just do this debate on the 3rd round
mcol

Con

While my opponent said environmental factors are merely hypothetical, were you aware over 300,000 people were killed in the 2006 tsunami? Environmental factors such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, and fires kill hundereds everyday. We should not only help the world, bu help others.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Nobody wants to spend 5 rounds on this topic.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
If you are a weak debater, you can be traded for a better debater mid game, you can also choose to quit mid-debate for a debate that pays better.

Also you are allowed to brag about your win in the last round (spike the ball) and point to the audience or to heaven.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
I'd be willing to take an argument like this, but I have no idea what the heck the 'NFL' rules are.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
This is a good topic. For example, when we in the West discourage developing countries from growing their heavy industries in an effort to reduce carbon emissions, we are impoverishing their children for the sake of the sake of our own children.

That said, don't our kids and their kids deserve a decent future?
Posted by AbandonAngel89 7 years ago
AbandonAngel89
i do it because i dont debate any more.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
I agree with Nails...
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Why are you debating past PF topics?
Seems like preparing for those upcoming would be a better idea.
No votes have been placed for this debate.