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

DEFINITIONS I never stated that my opponent's definitions aren't valid; they simply don't work in the context of the resolution. By defining poverty in locally relativistic standards my opponent has made it seem like he is dealing with local (not global) poverty. If my opponent insists on using his non-topical definitions, that's fine by me. TAKING ACTION The resolution only acts as a call to action to the extent of the prioritization of poverty reduction (or environmental protection). Neither side is required to stipulate any plan; however, by not providing one, PRO has backed the current, aid-based actions of the UNDP. Such backing wouldn't be a problem if PRO had put forth any sort of evidence or reasoning supporting their specific actions. LET'S MAKE A PLAN Both PRO and CON must back certain routes to take in order to fulfill their respective advocacy. PRO has attempted to link the CON position to choosing "plants over poor people". This is both irrelevant and abusive to the purpose of the debate. I could just as easily say that PRO plans to reduce poverty by burning money so that the impoverished would have something to cook their food on; however, my saying so doesn't mean this is supported by PRO, not does such a situation have to be supported by PRO. Both sides have the ability to designate specific actions to support poverty reduction or environmental protection. I have advocated the reduction of desertification. PRO has done absolutely nothing to refute such a problem. All points mentioned in my initial Contention 1 have been dropped. THE BURDEN OF PROOF In Public Forum debate as with most other conventional forms of debate, the Affirmative side holds a burden to fulfill the resolution. In context to this specific debate, PRO must demonstrate why global poverty reduction should be prioritized over environmental protection. So far, PRO has demonstrated that poverty is a problem. In response: so what? People breaking the law is a problem, but neither the UN nor any sovereign body has the capacity to completely eliminate crime. Likewise, the issue of poverty is, as already stated, far too enormous to be reasonably impacted by the UN. PRO cannot make arguments that invalidate his burden of proof because such arguments would cause him to lose the debate. Unfortunately, almost all of his arguments have fallen into such categorization. In "Pro states 1", PRO argues that the administrations of developing countries cannot be trusted with funds to combat global poverty OR environmental protection. Because this invalidates PRO's BoP, the point is null. In "Pro states 2", PRO advocated that the UN is too poorly funded to fight either poverty or environmental harms. This again invalidates his BoP and nullifies his point. CONCLUSION(s) My opponent states that I have left several points uncontested: - The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty Actually, this would be a point for PRO to make, and he hasn't proven it. - Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first PRO fails to demonstrate - We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq - Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts Totally irrelevant. - Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurrence This is actually the first time PRO has brought up this point, and not only is it totally incorrect but it is further unsupported by any sort of (lack of) evidence or common sense. Other than showing that poverty is a problem, PRO has done absolutely nothing to support his case or to directly attack mine, instead preferring to attack straw-man cases that are totally irrelevant to CON advocacy. All of my arguments have either been dropped by my opponent or opposed in a way that still leaves CON the victor due to a failed BoP by PRO, and PRO's case was insufficient to fulfilling his burden in the first place. Vote CON. New arguments brought forth by PRO in the concluding round should be disregarded. Thank you for reading.