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

DEFINITIONS The con goes on to say my definitions aren't valid because they come from dictionary.com, yet he has not supported this argument as to 'why'. If my definitions can't be logically proven in-accurate, then i see no reason for them not to be taken logically. Especially since the definitions i used weren't exactly crucial to hurting the opponents case, and instead used for strengthening mine. A definition is a definition, and i find it factual to say that the definitions in witch i provided compile in every way to reach the resolution. TAKING ACTION The resolution in itself is an action plan. I do not understand how there is any more that can be said on providing food, shelter, money, and resources to people with our given supplies. Combatting desertification correlates with environmental protection and therefore can't be used as its own arguement to this contention. Con goes on to say that "PRO cannot validly claim that poverty reduction holds greater efficacy than environmental protection". My whole case though is proof of poverty being a greater problem then environmental protection. If it is impossible to argue that one should be prioritized over the other, then what would be the point of this debate? Con states "Actions taken to reduce poverty under the WIPO are extra-resolutional and should be discarded because the UN would be irrelevant in prioritization" I would like to remind the judges, and my opponent, that WIPO is a branch belonging to the UN, as stated earlier. The resolution specifically refers to the UN, therfor this arguement is supported entirely. DEFENCE Apparently my opponent is un-educated to the fact that that global warming and pollution, are effective to the environment. While adding those points, after already combatting desertification and lessened water, my opponent continues to say i have invalid arguements. Adding things to an already debated subject in no way afflicts the points i am making, however. Instead by not arguing my points, we must assume that the con agrees with the pro. RE: pro states 1: My contradicts himself in this segmant. If we are talking about the UN spending its money, then what need is government issues to be brought into debate? My opponent was arguing that we wouldn't be spending money on what the resolution expects. However the dabate is on priority. I could just as easily say that the government would mess around with the money needed for environmental protection. RE: pro states 2: This in no way whatsoever combats at all what i was saying. If the UN doesn't have enough money to support poverty, how is it going to have any better luck at all with environmental protection? My opponent has failed to show us, how actions can be taken to help resolve environmental protection, and has only worried about showing how pro can't succeed the resolution. RE: pro states 3: This arguement has been viewed in an unintentional way. Humans everywhere are suffering from poverty as i have said many times before, and the con has in no way showed us how helping the environment first, will be better in prioritization over the lives of billions of people. CONCLUSION Con has left more than half of my arguements from round two, un argued. This leads to an obvious assumption that, the opponent either agrees with, or doesn't have an answer to any of these arguemnts. - The UN has sufficient funds to combat poverty - Poverty is destroying humanity. Humanity must be seen to first - We have already decreased poverty in countries such as Iraq - Were being taxed, already for poverty reduction efforts - Efforts to strengthen environmental protection, are pointless, due to eventual occurence Also further rebuttals to con were left un-opposed. All this must be looked at when judging this debate. It is for all the reasons i have supplied, that global poverty, the much greater problem, must be seen to first in order to save the lives of billions of people. Thus i strongly urge a vote for pro. thankyou -philosophical