The United Nations Should Prioritize Global Poverty Reduction Over All Other Issues

Before I delve into the mechanics of this debate round I would like to make the following observation: Xlilmattx's information page (. http://www.debate.org...) states that he has "Post Doctoral" education, makes more than $150, 000 a year, is 23 years old, and work in the legal department. Why then would someone with such extensive and impressive credentials steal and plagiarize, and as working in the legal profession as well as having post-doctoral education this is even more shameful, to steal a R1 speech from a 16 year old high school student, Clockwork. Here is the link where Clockwork posted his R1 speech, which Xlilmattx stole: . http://www.debate.org.... If you do not believe that, then taken straight from the author's mouth: "lil, what the heck. You literally just copy/pasted my R1 speech from . http://www.debate.org......, which PRO happens to have helped write. Plagiarism in and of itself is pretty bad, but this was just stupid. PRO knows a whole lot more about this case than you do. " (. http://www.debate.org...). Keep in mind that Xlilmattx's entire case is plagiarized while reading this debate. The true author is my debate partner Clockwork, to which I offer my personal condolences for this atrocity. My opponent has defined Poverty as the following: "Poverty defined by the World Bank as a state of living in which capable of adults live on less than 2.50 US dollars per day" So according to my opponent's definition, we are only dealing with CAPABLE ADULTS, not children, teenagers, or even young adults, but ADULTS. Keep that in mind as we progress through this debate. Capable as defined loosely by dictionary. referance. com as "Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified:" So the my opponent is arguing, by implication, that I should advocate only helping capable, or those who are qualified, adults, through poverty reduction. This is ludicrous. Not only has my opponent plagiarized his entire case, with the exception of the first 4 lines, but he has failed in presenting clear working definitions. However, the point made in the definition about making less than 2.5 American Dollars a day stands constant as a definition for poverty, and I have no contest to that. In my own case i stated that the UNDP defined poverty as ,making less that $1.5/day, this is for extreme poverty, $2.5/day is the baseline for all poverty. He further goes on to define protection. "Protection is defined by Webster's dictionary as the act of being protected; being safe; or out of harms way. To put that another way, my opponent wishes to interpret the resolution as follows: When in Conflict, The United Nations should prioritize Global Poverty (a state of living in which capable of adults live on less than 2.50 US dollars per day) Reduction over Environmental Protection (the act of being protected; being safe; or out of harms way). His definitions are unclear, he stole his case, being a doctor philosophiï¿½, makes the sin even more worse. We haven't even gotten into the good stuff yet, merely the first four lines of "his" R1 speech. Contention One: Environmental and agricultural sustainability must precede poverty reduction efforts in order to ensure stability. Here I would turn the voter's attention back to definitions for just a moment: The Oxford dictionary of English defines the United Nations as: "an international organization of countries set up in 1945, in succession to the League of Nations, to promote international peace, security, and cooperation … The Secretary Council bears the primacy responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security …" "Security is defined as being free from danger or threat" - Oxford Dictionary of English. Security relates to poverty through the definition of poverty (lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society) Comfortable is defined as "not in pain or danger. " In other words comfortable is defined as secure. Security is listed under The Purposes of the United Nations whereas environmental protection is not ( [directly related] as far as I can see, you can check for yourself here. http://www.un.org...) Stability and Security are intimately intertwined, and oftentimes you cannot have one without the other. So in order to ensure security, one must prioritize poverty reduction first, for by prioritizing poverty reduction, one both follows the tenants of the UN's declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Charter, but even more important the UN's Fundamental purpose. Subpoint A and B cannot be maintained without the larger premise of C1, since that falls, so too do they. Contention Two: The United Nations lacks the necessary means to ensure global poverty reduction. How so? To use my opponent's logic against him here, he believes that, in C1 that "Environmental and agricultural sustainability must precede poverty reduction efforts in order to ensure stability. " Yet here he is stating that the UN lacks necessary means to reduce global poverty, while he is advocating that it can be reduced VIA desertification reduction. Blatant Contradiction and terrible logic. Here I would like to make it crystal clear that I am not advocating my opponents policy, merely pointing out flaws within his own case. "As it stands, there is no reason to believe that efforts by the UN aimed at reducing global poverty have any chance at even putting a dent in the problem" Who's to say? It's nice to talk in generalizations, but if one doesn't have evidence to back up ones claims, then it is mere opinion with no substance to it. I have yet to see any empirical data supporting any of my opponent's claims, besides 3 quotations, 2 of them being definitions, and only one of them being an actual study. Any effort whatsoever made by the UN, even if it is only helping out one individual, will make a "dent" in poverty. The dent does not have to be large, only present. Subpoint A: The UN is inadequately funded too significantly reduce global poverty. The UN does not have to solve, or even have a significant impact upon Global Poverty, merely make the moral example to the charter nations, which is the lifeblood of the UN. Although it is true that the UN in itself should "Even if the UN were to devote all of these resources exclusively to poverty reduction, ignoring the other Millennium Goals, it wouldn't even come close to making an impact on global poverty" The first MDG is that of poverty reduction, using the previously defined term for priority in my R1 satisfies this. Subpoint B: Corrupted administrations and lack of transparency in developing nations severely hamper the effects of poverty reduction. Were is the evidence or supporting proof to substantiate this? I can say that aliens are deep inside the oceans of Earth, or that Atlantis exists, but without proof, they are mere opinions and does not even merit the title of contention. My opponent should lose the debate for 3 fundamental reasons: 1. )His argument is stolen 2. )His definitions, propositions, and syllogisms do not flow properly 3.