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

His first contention is that the United Nations is corrupt. 1. His only evidence suggesting this are these examples that these things still happen. Ofcourse there will always be problems. We can't make the world perfect. The fact that it doesn't do enough has no clear link to that it is 'overwhelmingly a podium for authoritarian nations seeking to suppress human rights and keep dictators in power.' The United States supports and works in conjunction with the UN on peacekeeping missions and diplomatic missions across the globe. Obviously the general concensus is that they can atleast do something and that they aren't corrupt. To prove otherwise, he's going to need more than 1 or 2 examples that are barely related to the issue he adresses. 2. Stopping these crimes against human rights is not even one that the United Nations is required to do in the first place. We have an International Criminal Court (ICC) for that, which works in conjunction with the UN, specifically designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, for example the ones he uses in his examples. I can give examples of my own of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and even his own example of Darfur, Sudan, where the ICC has already stepped in and intervened. This is the opposite of corruption, all of these leaders who have actually committed crimes against humanity are either fugitives or in ICC custody. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Even if for some reason you didn't buy the first two arguments, this is irrelevant. Regardless of what the current situation is now, the argument is over what they SHOULD do. If they are doing good, then they should keep doing what they are doing. If they are doing harm, they should change. Whether or not they are or aren't currently doing good or bad, corrupt or otherwise is irrelevant to what they SHOULD do and what is best overall. This isn't a reason why they SHOULDN'T do good by prioritizing poverty reduction so it is totally irrelevant. This entire point is just completely absurd. He tries to back up a baseless claim with example that don't even really support what he is saying, misinterprets what the UN actually needs to do, and isn't even arguing on the topic of what we should or shouldn't do i.e. the resolution. *Knock Knock* "Who's there?" "United Nations" That's not funny. Obviously the United Nations is not a joke, his second contention. 1. This veto ability is part of a fair system of checks and balances that prevents the corruption that he claims in his 1st point. It is exactly what he was arguing for. It prevents human rights abuses and the 'power of the majority'. For example, in strict democracy, if the rest of the world agreed to enslave US citizens, according to democracy, they could. It's in the majority interests. There need to be checks and balances on this 'majority vote' system to prevent these abuses which is exactly what this system does. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. There is no reason that this would ever make a decision on poverty reduction or environmental protection impossible. The ability to 'veto' is given only to 5 of the top world powers, all respected nations and all nations who deserve to have a major say in the global community. There is no reason why we can't trust these other nations, as logical human beings, not to agree to allow us to make the morally right action regarding poverty reduction. My opponent never gives a reason why they would ever abuse this veto power or even have a reason to abuse this veto power, so this claim is completely unwarranted. 3. Same argument as above. What the United Nations currently does has little to no bearing on what it should do. You can refer to the 3rd point against his 1st contention for this argument as well. This has no bearing at all on what should be done so it is irrelevant. This is a logical fallacy of 'It is; therefore, it ought to be' or in this case 'It isn't; therefore, it ought not be'. The two are not related. Contention 3 of his case: 1. Doesn't even support his case. This shows that we should make a decision based on the reduction of poverty. This would make poverty the priority, thus proving my side of this case. 2. His only real example, which he reasons is 'good' proves my case. We prioritize poverty reduction in his example by allowing the poor access to water, firewood, plants, etc. This puts poverty reduction before the environment, because a. In this example the environment is harmed. Trees can be cut down and plants can be killed. b. Poverty reduction is benefitted. We fulfill the needs of these people in poverty through use of the environment. This is a scenario that he implies is good (he says it is bad that water polution etc. makes this scenario no longer possible) and this scenario at the very base of his example for reasons a and b obviously puts poverty before the environment. 3. Look to my last contention. It is basically the contradiction of this and presented in a logically correct format. Under his arguments, the ultimate ends he achieves in this example is poor people being able to use resources (poverty reduction; a vote for me) while in my case I argue that valuing poverty reduction has other benefits besides just reduction of poverty, while environmental protection has unintended harms. The major difference is on how the decision is ultimately made, and in his example as well as my contention, the decision boils down to helping the poor, my stance in this case. Contention 4 1. I shouldn't even need to adress this because he contradicts himself. He tries to argue that the UNs job is simply to achieve world peace, but then he talks about, in the center of the paragraph, how the UN can form treaties on human rights and pollution control. He also says it is basically a world government. A government's only obligation is not simply to promote peace nor is it to implement pollution control. He has atleast 3 different definitions of the 'main purpose of the UN' all of which are logically contradictory to each other. 2. The UN doesn't simply promote world peace. The first one is the official UN site. Obviously not exclusive to 'world peace.' http://www.un.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. This isn't even a point for his case. Find anywhere in this contention where he remotely makes the link to the resolution. The contention itself is 'Main Purpose of the UN' and he seems to imply that that is simply world peace. He doesn't give any justification or even explain why that matters in the context of the debate. This entire contention is useless to him aswell. Summary: His contentions are all based on flawed logic and distorted facts and they don't even prove his side of the argument. None of them contain within them any reason to vote for him even if he could prove them true. He has no case at all. Mine is the only one in this round.