The Instigator
deadlysmurfed1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

: When in conflict the United Nation should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental p

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,516 times Debate No: 9613
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

deadlysmurfed1

Pro

. I strongly affirm the resolution because of, one, aiding poverty first is very critical in comparison to helping the environment, two, with a lower level of poverty, the economy will be strengthened, therefore we will have more money to focus on the environment and three, reducing global poverty is the more feasible and sensible option for the United Nation.
First, aiding poverty first is very critical in comparison to helping the environment. What is poverty? Poverty is the quality or state of being poor or broke; want or shortage of means of survival; need; any deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of ideas. Wall Street Journal states on September 17th 2009, "Without additional resources directed toward critical needs, many Life Insurance Corporation's emerge from the current crisis further away from their development goals, with the impressive gains achieved in recent years largely eroded". This says that unless our charitable money is going to important needs such as poverty instead of environment, the problem will become too hard to fix. bbbThe resolution intends that we should first stabilize poverty before environment. Poverty reduction or an attempt at solving must be the first priority because according to Dr. John Breen states August 13th, 2009 25,000 kids die every day from poverty. Into yearly proportion, 18.1 million kids die every year! Comparison to environmental problems, 13 die every year. Therefore, clearly when it comes to lives of children, it is a more rational choice for the United Nation to choose poverty over environmental protection. The resolution implies that when in conflict, the United Nation should choose poverty over environmental protection. And although there are many reasons why, we need to aim for the what. The United Nation's End Poverty Association states a direct quote as this "time is short. We must seize this historic moment to act responsibly and decisively for the common good". Since this quote is informing us on poverty, the quote says that we must hurry up and end poverty before it is too late.
Next, with a lower level of poverty, the economy will be strengthened; therefore we will have more money to focus on the environment. Since people are too low on income, demand has gone down significantly. Therefore, money isn't flowing through the economy in a considerable way. "A recent report suggests that a 150 billion dollars national investment in a "green economy" could not only boost the employment picture in the US, but also create new pathways out of poverty for many low-income workers in the country", a direct quote from Breaking News Article updated August 13th, 2009. However, ‘Global Issues' states that an attempt to clean up our environment "globally", will cost 9.7 trillion. Not only will prioritizing poverty help the economy and the flow of money, it will also allow the government to use tax money to help the environment. We can stabilize both by prioritizing poverty first. Therefore, that will be the more feasible option.
The United Nation has strong programs to reduce poverty. This includes, for adults, there are food for work programs where the adults are paid with food to build schools, dig wells, make roads, and so on. This will both nurse them and build infrastructure to end the poverty. For children, there are food for education programs, where the children are provided food when they attend school. Vinod Kholsa, Harvard Business review also states to this matter that "their education will help them to escape from hunger and global poverty. We have put in programs like this to help lower the number of people that die per day and so far it has been and strong success". Another program the United Nation is performing is the "2015 End Poverty" program which intends to minimize poverty to an extremely low rate by 2015. This is a 6 year project which has been put into action and the next high-level meeting will be on in September of 2010. At the rate that the project is going, it is about half way.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

The United Nations is an incompetent institution. Investments in poverty reduction from government entities, especially international government entities, because they have to spend money that otherwise would be used to create wealth, in effect do not "reduce" poverty at all-- they spread it around, and help more of it grow.

This is not to say they should be taking environmental protection over poverty reduction either. The United Nations has no good reason to exist-- it consists of the least bad governments being guilt-twisted into giving concessions to the most bad. It's prioritization list should read like this:

1. Stop existing.

Neither environmental production nor poverty reduction should appear on this list, and therefore neither can be prioritized "over" the other.
Debate Round No. 1
deadlysmurfed1

Pro

My opponent says the un sucks. So but he did not say the un needs do any thing…..
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

:So but he did not say the un needs do any thing…..
But I did.

I gave a specific recommendation for it to do 1 thing.

Read my last round again, can you remember what it is? :)
Debate Round No. 2
deadlysmurfed1

Pro

your dumb
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Ad hominem.

My arguments remain unaddressed.
Debate Round No. 3
deadlysmurfed1

Pro

deadlysmurfed1 forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

And....

Kentucky fried.

Good lord my arteries are clogged.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Minus one.

Conduct- CON (obvious: namecalling and forfeit)
Grammar- CON (obvious: captialization, etc)
Arguments- CON (unrefuted, and PRO kind of dropped his case)
Sources- TIED (none used)
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
"The United Nations is an incompetent institution."

i agree. But i think the points could have been argued a little more. This debate was essentially un-interesting
Posted by deadlysmurfed1 7 years ago
deadlysmurfed1
sorry about that so do you want to debate
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Be careful. Your argument is Pro, but the position you've set yourself at is Con. You may wish to correct this or you're essentially forfeiting the game to smartassery.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
deadlysmurfed1Ragnar_RahlTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
deadlysmurfed1Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05