Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir

Since this is the last speech, I will try to keep all of my arguments strictly to reasons why to vote for me. I will be giving 5 specific voting issues that will justify an affirmative vote. I'll win all five arguments, but in reality, you could just find the one you most agree with and read the impact. Winning any one of these will easily justify a win for me, and I'll certainly explain how. ONE: My opponent is abusive Debate is: 1. Competitive 2. Educational 1. Competition My opponent throws out multiple straw man arguments with no purpose except to waste my character space. By the time I have given good responses to these pointless arguments, I don't have enough character space left to address the real points of his case. If you subscribe to this win-at-all-costs logic, debate becomes simply throwing more arguments out there and extending whichever one(s) the opponent couldn't cover. This takes the competitive value out of debate because it becomes a race to the bottom. The less evidence you provide, the more arguments you can fit in, so the more you win. This means there is no intellectual competition going on, and winning the debate equates to nothing because all you prove is that you could put more arguments out there. 2. Education His strawman UN-is-evil arguments take a topic that is supposed to educate us on the debate of poverty over the environment, and center it on whether the UN is corrupt. He admits that his UN points are obviously incorrect, so debating them has no educational value anyway. Next, we have this issue of evidence. Read his original third contention. It is poorly put together, has no warrant, and is the shortest of his four contentions. There really wasn't anything there for me to rebut except his poorly put together logic. Then in his last speech, he gives evidence to support his claim (with no links at all to back it up!), giving me only a single speech to respond. By doing this, I don't have time to have a full debate on this issue. These arguments will never be able to be fully developed and debated like they would be if he made them in his original speech, so there is a significant educational loss here because of his underhanded tactics. IMPACT: Regardless of whether or not he wins that the environment supersedes poverty (he won't), he is doing it in an unfair way that is harmful to debate and abusive to me. He can never justify a vote in his favor by using underhanded tactics, because if we were to conform to his tactics, there would be no real debate going on at all. TWO: His 4th Contention, Purpose of the UN He argues in both speeches that the United Nations is only going to do what it was designed to do. I TOTALLY AGREE. Now look at the warrants on both sides. I give you two links showing that the UN clearly makes efforts to reduce poverty. He gives absolutely no examples of the UN prioritizing the environment. IMPACT: Read his definition of UN, read his 4th contention and the place he re-extends it. He clearly proves that the UN isn't going to act outside of its game plan. I prove that the UN does help the poor, he doesn't prove that the UN helps the environment, so by HIS OWN LOGIC I win this debate because my side is the only one the United Nations could feasibly enact. THREE: His third contention Look at my first rebuttal where I turned his third his 3rd contention into a reason to vote for me. What is so awesome is that he helps me by strengthening his original claim with more evidence, without ever addressing the turn I put on it proving it is a reason to vote for me. You have a contention, ironclad with his own evidence, that conclusively proves that environmental protection is a vehicle we can use to reach the goal of helping the poor. His contention says this; rebuttal says this. He never denies it. His only offensive argument in this case values protection of the poor as the ultimate goal and only looks to protecting the environment as a means to reach that goal. This is clearly prioritization of my side of the resolution, because his justification of his methods as good is that the help the poor. IMPACT: 1. You have a plan of action, given by my opponent and not me, that the United Nations should take. Throughout the entirety of his case, his justification of this contention is that it will lead to helping the poor. I pointed out the fact that this means he is prioritizing poverty reduction as the ultimate goal. HE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS. Therefore, he concedes that his only relevant contention is in actuality a reason to vote for me. 2. This was the only argument that he ever claimed was a reason to vote for him. I've disproved this so there's no reason he has left to win him a vote. --- My final two points are my first two contentions. He makes the argument that you can drop them because they weren't 'extended' by me. Think about what he is saying: He didn't make a rebuttal of any sort on these contentions, and none of his contentions remotely clashed with my first two. There was nothing that he ever said that would make my first contentions untrue, so there was no reason I needed to waste space rejustifying arguments you could already accept as true. If what he was looking for was some confirmation that I was still using my case as a means to win the round and not doing some underhanded burden-shift like he was, then you can look to, for example, the very last sentences in my rebuttal where I say "He has no case at all. Mine is the only one in this round." I explicitly put forth the idea that my case was the only case that held any weight as a reason to vote, so I fulfilled my obligation in 'extending' it. There was nothing further I needed to do to prove it true because he never came remotely close to rebutting it in his first speech. FOUR: My First Contention He never gives any intelligible reason anywhere in any of his speeches why my first contention isn't true. I'll simply restate it, so you don't have to scroll back up and reread. Poverty is a vicious cycle. Those in poverty are dug further into poverty, I gave examples. The environment is a virtuous cycle. Even when beaten and battered, it comes back as good as new. I gave examples. If you had two debts (say, for example, $1,000 each) and you needed to decide which to pay off, would you pay off the one that increased by $100 dollars every year, or the one that decreased by $100 dollars every year. IMPACT: It's simple logic and something he never disproved. The fact that he doesn't address this means he concedes it as true. We choose poverty reduction because it is urgent and compounding. It's as simple as that. FIVE: My second contention He simply gives one example (with no reference to site) as a completely rebuttal of this point. I still win this point because: 1. I have numerous examples (you can apply the ones in my C3 also) from across the globe with clear links and impacts. He has one. 2. He doesn't show how his solution would ever fix poverty in the slightest, so it doesn't refute to my point. 3. He doesn't address the logical arguments I make about the necessities of the poor superseding the environment. IMPACT: This one is obvious. I proved his side harms people and my side helps people. I disproved his rebuttal, so you can vote for me on the basis that my side is the clearly superior choice for humanity. Summary, ONE: He is cheating and ruining debate TWO: His own definition and C4 prove my case is the only feasible one. THREE: He drops the argument that his only 'true' contention actually proves that you should vote for me. FOUR: He drops the argument that my side ought to be prioritized because it is urgent and compounding. FIVE: My side is the only one that benefits humans. His harms them. He couldn't disprove this. Like I said, any of these 5 is reason alone to vote for me. Side Note: I'm the only person with links to any evidence at all.