Poverty can and should be eradicated

Rebuttals:the fact we have reduced it puts us in a better position to be able to eradicate the remaining poverty. There is a relatively small number left to help (in some countries) making it more manageable- Pro’s proposition here is invalid, for:1. It’s a straw man fallacy! Arguing for reducing poverty does not help the case of eradicating it!2. His assumptions are grossly inaccurate: 1.1 billion people have inadequate access to water, 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation, 1.6 billion live without electricity, 1 in ever 2 children is in poverty. Poverty is very much rampant, unmanageable should be the more adequate word to describe it [1]. Every invention could have easily been dismissed as not possible because it had not happened in the thousands of years before.- Pro is confusing argument from ignorance [2] with inductive reasoning [3].1. Every raven, so far, is black. Therefore, all ravens are black. => This is an inductive argument.2. Every unicorn, so far, is cute. Therefore, all unicorns are cute. => This is a argument from ignorance.=> In (1) we have a positive factual claim, as in supported by real evidence, whereas in (2) we have no real evidence.=> So far, poverty exists. Therefore, poverty always exists.Corruption is responsible for a relatively small share of the illicit money flow from developing countries.- Pro’s contention here is invalid, for:1. It’s a bare assertion, unsupported by his own source: “multinational companies steal more than $900bn from developing countries each year through tax evasion and other illicit practices.”2. Corruption, political or moral, is indeed one of major causes of poverty. Internally, it pushes Man into becoming ever greedy, thus not only does it prevent them from sharing wealth (i.e. preventing the reduction of Poverty) but it also initiates Poverty by compelling them to appropriate the wealth of others. Externally, it allows for even more lack of sharing & wrongful appropriation, thus a perpetual disparity of wealth: “In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20%, in 1997, 74 times as much”, “0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets in 2004” [1].- Also, corruption being in constant change is not reason enough to believe it can be eradicated! The world can counter the negative impacts of nature.- Countering the negative impacts does not imply eradicating them. Natural disasters have far reaching economic consequences [4]. Katrina for instance cost $108Bn & left hundreds of thousands unemployed [5], & millions homeless [6].Wars are becoming less frequent and deadly.- Again, bare assertion & non-supportive to Pro’s resolution, for:1. Less wars does not imply no more wars!2. Throughout history we had long periods of peace, & also long periods of war, successively. Such as WWI & WWII followed by the declaration of the UN [7].3. Currently, the World’s military expenditure amounts to 2.3% of its GDP ($1776Bn) [8].=> Wars cause poverty, prevents its reduction & there is no reason to believe they can ever be eradicated.If […] the past is a good indicator of the future then those countries are looking good for the future.- Countries having had some success in a relatively short historical period (one century or less), does not imply they will have the same success perpetually! No civilisation has ever always stayed on top.Conclusion:- Pro’s entire case is a series of bare assertions & straw man. He argues for reducing poverty & extrapolates to eradicating it! His sources are either non-existent or non-supportive. His arguments are contradicted by the facts. He has thus thoroughly failed to carry his BOP. Thus I win the debate.=> Vote Con.Sources:[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...