Public Forum, October Topic: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

DEFINITION I am really lost as to how the definition isn't in context of the revolution. A definition is a definition, you can't just change that as we may wish, to better prove a point. Definitions can only be argued for what they are, fact. And using them as evidence, should not be confined to any specific 'context'. But apparently my definitions are non-topical even though they come from both an internet dictionary site, and the real webster. Moving on. TAKING ACTION Again, as i have said, and was apparently not percieved, the resolution in itself is the proposition of action. My oppoent must tell me how it isn't before this can be a valid arguement. The topic being a resolution, means that is is debating on either side to a call to action. So basically, whatever side wins, would be the call to action, Thus the meaning of "resolved" LET'S MAKE A PLAN My opponent continues to not make virtually any sense with this arguement. Debate is the arguing of opinions. I have argued mine, yet my opponent maintains that it is not because it is my opinion. my opponent stating "PRO plans to reduce poverty by burning money so that the impoverished would have something to cook their food on" Would be perfectly fine, because again, it is your peresonal opinion. Whether any one agrees with it or not is an entirely different and irrelevant story. My oppoent again jumps to the conclusion that i have dropped the desertification point. However a simple read through of my earlier arguements, will show you that this arguement has indeed been refuted several times. Instead, it has been my opponent who has not combatted that desertification is no extra from anything else that applies to environmental protection. Again it is the same concept, and must be argued on a totally higher scale for it to hold any validity. RE: THE BURDEN OF PROOF I could just as easily say the same to my opponent. Who are you to say say that environmental protection isn't just as bad of a problem? This is the whole point for this entire debate. I just don't understand this arguement at all. But like you said, poverty is too enourmous of a problem. This is the exact reason why it should be fixed first! Other minor problems, need to be seen to secondary. We need to be looking at the bigger issues, and as the CON as just stated for us all to see, global poverty is a huge problem that needs to be taken care of first. It's only a matter of time before poverty spreads to not only rural areas, but other more sophisticated areas of the world. the way i see it, the arguements in pro states 1 and 2, are still effective until proven wrong. Again in which have not been done, not only here but in many cases through-out this debate. RE: CONCLUSION - The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty My opponents states "Actually, this would be a point for PRO to make, and he hasn't proven it". I would like to remind my opponent and the readers that that I have provided a full arguement on how the U.N. has not only its main branch of money, but those of its supportives such as WEPO. AGAIN an arguement left un-touched. - Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first "PRO fails to demonstrate" Okay, but how is this so, when every thing i have written falls under this category? - We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq - Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts "Totally irrelevant." Okay then, in that case, why doesn't my opponent tell me how they are irrelevant? i would like to remind the viewers that CON brought up BOTH of these arguements to begin with. - Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurrence "This is actually the first time PRO has brought up this point, and not only is it totally incorrect but it is further unsupported by any sort of (lack of) evidence or common sense. It is not a new arguement. This was already discussed and left entirely alone in a previous arguement. As have been the case with most of my arguements. Ratherr then telling me how my arguements are incorrent, my opponent quite often just jumps to the assumption that they ARE invalid without any further proof of explaination. This is a good thing to note when voting on this debate. My opponent has left most, if not all, of my points and contentions literally untouched in the last few arguements. He proceeds to tell me how my arguements are in-valid, but has not yet showed any evidence as to HOW they are, as was not the case with me. I would like to end by reminding you the voters, and the world, that poverty is affecting living human beings. While it may not be us that have to experience the hardships of poverty, it is easy to say that it can wait. But by looking at the world through their shoes, i am sure things would be 100% different in our oppinions. People are dying from this. People are suffering from this. We as humans should feel obligated to provide for each other and do all that we can to ensure the stability of our race. It is for these reasons, that i believe the vote should be PRO. I strongly urge you the judge and the voters, to vote my parnter and I, for all of the above reasons. Thankyou. -philosophical