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

DEFINITIONS Both of my defintions were taken from www.dictionary.com Unless the definitions on that site, are now in-significant and non-credible, I have provided correct and accurate definitions to apply to what i saw fit enough to affirm the resolution with. My definition of Prioritize (to give a higher priority to) applies perfectly, because we as a nation need to prioritize global poverty reduction, the more important issue, over global environmental protection. Con states that i have not stated any specific action to reduce poverty reduction at all. However, the whole resolution is the course of action! I could just as easily say the same to con. Con has only told us how the U.N. has in-sufficient supplies to take care of global poverty reduction. Well than if the U.N. has so little to go off of, then they are really not going to make a difference with the environment either. There has been no action plan stated by the con in order to help better the environment. Sure we could spend more money into farming, etc. But the biggest problem with with environment is pollution, and "global warming". How can we stop the sun from rising and setting each and every day? How can we possibly think that by spending more money into different organizations, that pollution will magically just stop. People will continue doing what they do, no matter what. The enviroment is an issue that needs to be taken care of, but we need to look at the bigger issue first. What we need to look at is, global poverty plagues nearly half of the world's population, where it is the cause of extreme suffering, malnutrition, and even death. Environmental protection, conversely, may not have such a substantially negative effect on the world's population, standards of living, health, and survival. It is far more likely to simply force humans and societies to adapt to slightly different temperatures and whether patterns and to migrate to more accommodating climates. It will certainly cause major problems around the world, and increased suffering for some, but it is not as likely to have as significant of an effect as poverty already has around the world. When it must, the UN should prioritize poverty over environmental protection. We should seek to Environment problems, only after such problems dealing with the lives of human beings are sought to first. UN money can go straight to the poor in the form of aid, directly addressing a clear human need. Money that goes toward the problem of environmental protection, does not have such a direct return-on-human-need as the effects on human needs are very indirect (protecting humans from changes in temperature and the possibility of negative effects in the future). And, of course, all efforts by the UN to combat environmental protection will do nothing to prevent its eventual occurrence. Because poverty reduction entails lower risks and more direct bang-for-buck, the UN should prioritize it over environmental protection. Also what my opponent assumes, is that all of the U.N.'s budget in reducing poverty goes straight to the people. This mildly incorrect. It is ridiculous to think that poverty can be handled by simply handing the money directly to work associations. The money used to reduce poverty is used to help develop more substantial work environment and better economic progress in povery suffering areas. These have wide-spread areas that they inflict, therefore, taking care of billions of people suffering from povery, with only 6 billion dollars does not provide as big of a problem. Also WIPO (world intulectual poverty organization) is a large contributor and fully devotional to the UN. They have a current estimate of over 10 billion dollars mainly for securing poverty problems. I would say that money issues are not a problem, as far as taking care of all the other development goals that the U.N. is weighted with. http://www.wipo.int... RE: PRO C1 My opponent leaves this argument untouched accusing it of having no 'water'. However it makes perfect sense. How can anyone worry about the environment when they are poverty stricken, and barely surviving? Once poverty is mildly reduced, more effective actions WILL be taken in enviromental protection as far pollution. After poverty has been taken care of on a wide-scale basis, we can focus our efforts in teaching desertification in schools, and invest other methods of bettering it. RE: PRO C2 Global poverty is the much greater problems for many reasons. Even in your own source https://www.vtunnel.com... It talks about how bad poverty is growing. more than half of the WORLD is dying. Sure maybe we can fix a few problems with it by helping the environment, but how long will that take? This will take years to grow all the plants, and help atmospheric problems etc. Mean while we have people DYING from this plague called poverty. Something needs to be dont and fast. The U.N. has sufficent funds combined with other organizations to fix this problems, and if it means putting of other develepment goals, then by all means we should still proceed. RE: PRO C3 In this point i am afraid i was mis-understood. Nowhere did i say that we were taxing poverty stricken people, but we already ARE being taxed from the U.N. Where do you think all their money comes from? It is from all the hard working people who belong to the U.N. This is un-arguable because it is already happening. And how could one not consider that suffering from land degredation is not at all considered suffering from poverty? Next would the money used to help poverty be used for anything other than its original purpose? It is another debate, to try and resolve whether the UN is trustworthy with its money or not. And the "Iraq style invasion" has supported hundreds of people, decreased violence, and provided food and shelter for Iraqi people. RE: FURTHER POINTS 1. It is impossible for me to say anything is fact and have it just be that way. This is simply my opinion of what should be fact, and it is up to the judges decision on whether either side has supported their opinion well enough to their liking. 2. Never did i say anything about "endangered animal species". Either way, again, i cannot construct a neg case. I was simply using the resolution, as i am alotted. Plain and simple the argument was that i think it is more sane to prioritize global poverty reduction before plants. My opponent goes on to say that i have stated no evidence. But i would like you the voters to read over his first arguements. I do beleive there are no sources whatsoever. There for, this argument "holds no water" as my opponent would say. Global poverty is slowly eating at the world, and killing unstable families. We need to prioritize this over the environment, because we need to protect human lives. While we are at home in our comfy homes, otheres live in cold shacks, or on streets struggling to find food in dumpsters. Everyon deserves the same basic rights. It is for this reason that my partner and i STRONGLY affirm the resolution, and urge you, the judges, to do like-wise. thankyou. BTW clockwork, will we be doing a cross fire? We could dedicate one round each to asking questions, and in the next answer, and ask. Just a thought