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

DEFINITIONS My definitions are backed by the UN and the World Bank, international organizations enormously important to the topics at hand. PRO's definitions are pulled from dictionary. com and cannot be logically applied to the resolution. Because poverty occurs in every country in the world, defining poverty in locally relativistic standards (as PRO did) means that any poverty reduction would be local, not global. The establishment of a poverty line applicable to global standards is necessary to keep the threshold of poverty reduction stipulated by PRO topical. TAKING ACTON I have never stated that PRO had to provide a specific plan to reduce global poverty; however, if he did not mention any plan, then it would be assumed that he would be endorsing the current actions taken by the UNDP to reduce global poverty through the resolution. PRO has thus conceded his backing of current UNDP aid-centered poverty reduction methods. His claim that poverty reduction through aid is less expensive than educational resources used to combat desertification defies common sense, and this extraordinary claim has yet to be backed by any statistics. Once again, there are many different ways of providing poverty aid, and without a model to estimate the costs of aid-based poverty reduction, PRO cannot validly claim that poverty reduction holds greater efficacy than environmental protection. Actions taken to reduce poverty under the WIPO are extra-resolutional and should be discarded because the UN would be irrelevant in prioritization. DEFENSE I seriously wonder if PRO even read my case. His attempts at refutation only attack global warming and pollution reduction efforts, which were not even mentioned in my constructive speech, and he makes no attempt to refute anything remotely concerning the devastating effects of desertification. PRO has made no attacks on the efficacy of desertification reduction or it's significant effect on local stability and reduction to poverty, nor has he presented any refutation of my second contention that does not result in his own BoP falling. PRO states "It is another debate, to try and resolve whether the UN is trustworthy with its money or not", which is totally irrelevant to my C2B. The corrupt governments are wasting the poverty-aid funds, not the UN. As to the abuse of these funds by government leaders PRO has offered no contest. Pro states "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. " Note that if this is the case, PRO has failed to show that poverty reduction should be prioritized and accordingly loses this debate. We shall, however, assume he wishes to act upon his following statement: PRO's states "Plain and simple the argument was that i think it is more sane to prioritize global poverty reduction before plants"; it is clear PRO understands neither the Negative opposition or it's implications. All arguments against this have been stated in previous rounds and are extended. CONCLUSION Poverty is a problem. A significant portion of this problem lies in the inability to obtain adequate food supplies. Desertification limits the agricultural potential of these highly localized food markets, which means fewer people can support themselves through subsistence farming and that food costs will rise due to limited supply. If a food surplus cannot be maintained, people will continue to fail to obtain food, which will render the attempts to reduce poverty ineffective, even when we ignore the limitations stated in my C2. PRO has failed to dismantle my link between the reversing of desertification and the protection of the lives of billions and has even gone so far as to irrelevantly attack pollution and global warming reduction methods. Thus far, the victor is clear.