we need to help stop poverty
Debate Rounds (3)
No one deserves to drink dirty, contaminated water. Starve. Watch their family and friends die. What if it was you? would you want people to help you? Would you be grateful for even just a bucket of clean water, some food, shelter, and clothing? They don't ask for much so why can't we give it to them? because we're selfish. we would rather be on our phones, at the mall, with our friends, or at a restaurant, then help people that don't have that privilege. They CAN'T do it, and i'm sure if it was us that needed help, they would do it.
Even with some level of poverty present throughout history, humans have survived and flourished. There therefore cannot be a need to end poverty. Ending poverty, is instead, a deeply felt human desire. Ending poverty is a want not a need.
Poverty : Lack of access to necessities to survive and live in general dignity participating with the rest of humankind. People in poverty are unable to lead productive and healthy lives due to not having enough material or resources available to them.
Need : something you must have to live
Want : something you would like to have
A. There has always been some level of poverty present in humankind.
B. Despite some level of poverty being present humanity is more successful than ever before.
C. If A and B, there cannot therefore be a need to end poverty. Ending poverty is a want.
(A) There has always been some level of poverty present in humankind.
Arranged moving back in time I present sources showing poverty present from 1900 to now, in human societies. The timeline moves from present day backward.
Present Day- A data report by one.org accounts for current estimated levels of poverty this year. Their info graphic is compelling in showing poverty exists today. Additionally, I might add that it is highly likely, since we are debating the merits of ending poverty, poverty is a current present issue for humans today.
2000- Death rates due to poverty are found to be as significant as stroke and heart attack, accord to an epidemiological review, by Columbia University, NY, USA.
1959- The US Census has estimated poverty rates, in The Untied States of America, dating back to 1959.
1900- An estimated 40% of the US population is living below the poverty line in 1900. (Scan to tables in the middle of this page, see definition for column H, and find last H recorded.)
1798 - "" "no possible form of society could prevent the almost constant action of misery upon a great part of mankind." For most countries, poverty was not even a problem; it was a plain, unchangeable fact." 
BCE- Christian texts have multiple places describing the prevalence of the impoverished. Some scripture quotes such as Matthew 26:11 (circa 70 to 110CE), as well as The Book of Deuteronomy 15:11, (circa 7th century BCE) are good examples. "A Puritans Mind" has a rather exhaustive list which shows poverty must have existed in these times. 
While not an exhaustive trip through human existence, I"m stopping my evidence line here, as sufficient. I believe this point to be irrefutable, sound, and factual.
(B) Despite some level of poverty being present humanity is more successful than ever before.
I define success in terms both biologic and as general human progress.
From best scientific evidence, and current demographic estimates, we have gone from beginning as a species to over 7 billion strong and growing. Human distribution across Earth has grown from where we originated as a species, in Africa, to living in every biome of the world. About 12,000 years ago we developed agriculture. This began our journey toward moving away from subsistence living and put us on the road to modern human societies today. "Out of agriculture, cities and civilizations grew."
I"m sitting in a room heated by natural gas, lit by stable long lasting electric incandescent light, using radio waves to communicate with humans around the globe, via written language, on a machine which is able to copy, store, transform, and display huge amounts of data. While I"m doing this, an automated machine is sanitizing ceramic flatware and metal utensils that my family and I used to eat off of. I"m wearing combinations of synthetic and natural cloth which are: breathable, light weight, soft, and pleasingly colored. My immune system has been artificially armed against potential exotic as well as common and pervasive microscopic disease. Yes. I am very lucky to be able to partake in the majority of human advancement, but I"ve describe only a fraction of what humans have created and done for themselves.
All of these things have occurred with poverty present, and typically present in the very specific cultures and communities who helped make these advances for humanity.
Tying it together-
Even if over 3 billion people are living on less than $2.50 a day, the other 3 billion are living better. If you are in poverty in the United States, or other developed countries, you still benefit from many of the advancements I"ve described above. And if lower poverty itself is a measure of success, that it is at historical lows now.
Our biologic success and all human progress has occurred with various levels of poverty present. Human population growth, distribution, influence, and command over our own lives is greater than at any other point in human history.
(C) If A and B, there cannot therefore be a need to end poverty. Ending poverty is a want.
Poverty doesn"t threaten our species existence or remove all human ability to succeed and progress. So we, humanity, do not have a need to end poverty. No, instead, we have a great desire to end it. It is a want. I share in that desire as well. But, as long as there is a large enough group of humans able to live fully and well, for species viability, then poverty can remain within our species and does not need to be ended.
Total world population could descended into poverty, and live much as pre-historic man once did. Even then, humanity wouldn't have to end poverty. World population would crash, but humans have survived through population crashes before (the black plague, toba explosion).
Will I personally work to prevent myself from falling into poverty? Absolutely. Will I donate my time and resources to help other fellow humans who are less fortunate than I? Of course. Do we need to end poverty altogether? No. It might not even be possible to end poverty and remain what we understand to be human.
1. Poverty in Perspective: An info graphic from the 2015 DATA Report. one.org. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
2. Death by poverty?. Columbia University, Mammalian School of Public Health. 16 June 2011.
3. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. US Census Bureau, 2009. September 2010.
4. Historical Statistics and Analysis on Unemployment, Poverty, Urbanization, etc., in the United States. frisian.com. 1996.
5. Poverty Not Always With Us The Economist. 1 June 2013.
6. The Early Church and ideas about Alms. A Puritans Mind. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
7. World Population. Wikipedia. Retrieved 6 June 2015
8. Journey of Mankind (Adapted from 'Out of Eden'/'The Real Eve"). Bradshaw Foundation. 2003.
9. Humans Change The World. Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
10. The Development of Agriculture. National Geographic. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
11. How Rich Are Poor People?. Slate. 14 September 2011.
12. Max Roser (2015). "World Poverty". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
espinosa5644 forfeited this round.
Last round expired before my opponent could supply further argument. In the spirit of the debate, and to try and strengthen my own argument more, I"ll expose where I see one weaknesses in con and then counter.
Weakness: if poverty, as shown by con"s own sources, is life threatening, than that would by con"s own definition put stopping poverty in the classification of a "need".
Counter: I agree that stopping poverty is a need for those experiencing poverty itself. However, because the argument is framed as "we need" this pushes the defined group of people outside of those just affected by poverty. It would propose that we, as an aggregate, have that need. Per my line of argument I have show there to be no compelling need. Again, this is a want. One I also share.
I also would like to note that I had some poor editing here:
"" I present sources showing poverty present from 1900 to now, in human societies." That should have read, ""showing poverty present from current day to BCE."
In round three, if no further rebuttal or arguments are presented for pro, I"ll see if I can supply other interesting lines of argument con.
espinosa5644 forfeited this round.
I was thinking a bit more about what would be, perhaps, a more entertaining con argument. If I had to do this one over again, I think I would go less semantic, and instead argue that to truly end poverty we would actually no longer be human. Essentially I"d argue that to remove poverty, you would have to have extreme homogeneity and equality, a state that would render us something beyond humanity and be more awful than poverty itself. That argument is really complicated, philosophically tinged, and would probably loose. It would still be great fun.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.