Poverty can and should be eradicated

Thanks Pro for the opening arguments.Preface: - It should be noted that Pro’s Resolution is specific about eradicating poverty, not just reducing it. - Beside the utter lack of sources & support for his arguments, Pro has yet to argue for the eradication of poverty, as affirmed in his resolution. Case: I. Causes of Poverty: - Poverty, like ignorance & corruption, is a human condition entrenched in all societies past & present for it stems from causes that are inherent in the human psyche & rooted in the environment we live in. For brevity purposes we will limit the said causes to some of the more relevant ones: 1. Corruption: factor that makes it easy for the wealthy & authority to get richer at the expense of the poor, for there is a lock of higher authority to check the flow of wealth & thus the rules turn in favour of the fittest at the expense of the weakest [1]. Even Humanitarian Aid from rich countries (such as the US) to poor countries (such as sub-Saharan Africa) is damaged by corruption [2]. 2. Climate Change: a condition generally beyond human control: some areas have stable climate suitable for cultivating land, harvest & nurturing livestock, some others suffer from extreme unstable environments, heat, soil, rain. . . that disrupts the sustenance necessary for local populations, which in its turn creates & may even perpetuate Poverty. 3. Wars: a state of affairs that drains resources, human & economic, & destroys the socioeconomic structures that generate & distribute wealth, which also creates Poverty & prevent possible solution from being implemented to solve it. & wars are, too, a human condition existing as long as humans exist. 4. Natural Disasters: floods, volcanos, tsunamis, epidemics, earthquakes. . . all contribute in destroying both wealth & the structure that might preserve it. Cause that can not be eradicated, not by any human means. II. Reduction of Poverty vs Eradication of Poverty: - Pro’s contentions are almost all for the reduction of poverty, not for its eradication. Pro must provide a way through which the roots of Poverty can be eliminated for good, that if he wishes to support his resolution. - Furthermore, even in case a particular society was seemingly successful in eliminating poverty with itself, that would not imply its automatic success in eradicating it. That is because such achievements are contingent to a very specific circumstances of time & place & overall socioeconomic situation unlikely, even impossible, to form a perpetual state. Rebuttals: - The only argument provided by Pro seemingly supporting his resolution, that is eradicating Poverty as opposed to suppressing it, is the following: “The argument that we have not ended poverty yet is not an argument that it can't ever be done.” - I certainly do not agree, for the above statement is inductively false. If, so far, we haven’t been able to end Poverty, then, inductively, that’s a good reason to believe that we never will. Believing there is a chance to end Poverty for good warrants, at the very least, as good a counter-argument as the above pure inductive argument is. An anology could be made with the following example: 1. So far the sun rises from the east. 2. The sun tomorrow will rise from the east. 3. The sun tomorrow will rise from the west. => (1) is a fact ; (2) is inductively true, i.e certain. => (3) is inductively false. Therefore, believing (3) to be true necessitate a serious argument strong enough to trump pure inductive reasoning! Hence my position. Conclusion: As I established throughout my round, eradicating Poverty isn’t simply rationally unjustified, for the statement “Poverty can be eradicated in the future” is inductively false, it is also & more importantly utterly hopeless, for Poverty is rooted in inunshakeable physical & mental realities, both internal & external, outside human influence. Sources: [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl...