Free Topic Analysis: PF

LOS ANGELES, Cali. — Jared Dummitt, formerly of Stuyvesant High School, has provided the debate community with a free topic analysis on the October Public Forum topic.

A full topic analysis and evidence book on the October topic is available in the Victory Briefs Store.

It appears to be a law that you cannot have a deep sympathy with both man and nature.
-Henry David Thoreau

October seems set up to be a rather grim month in the world of Public Forum debate. This months’ topic presents us with the Sophie’s Choice-esque situation of having to decide which of the modern world’s most pervasive demons we should fight: global poverty or environmental degradation. While most Public Forum topics deal with issues of grave weight and importance, the scope of October’s topic is particularly enormous: it could be argued that one of these two forces has caused nearly every calamity that plagues us today, from war and terrorism, to disease and hunger.

Joseph Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” Indeed, both sides will doubtless claim that prioritizing their preferred issue will save many more lives than their opponents will. Strange though it may sound, I encourage debaters to keep Stalin’s words in the back of their mind as they debate this topic. Issues of a global scale will decide the ballot, and both sides will rightly discuss the preservation and loss of billions of people at a time. However, bandying about prophecies of millions of deaths will quickly cause judges to lose interest if it is not accompanied by a communication of the stories of the people who make up those millions.

Although most debaters have no direct experience with the type of poverty and destruction that the United Nations seeks to solve, the issues of this topic strike a deeply human chord. Tapping into that human connection may be the key not only to winning a round, but also to truly understanding the issues that the resolution raises.

Framing the Resolution

“When in Conflict”

These three words are important in that they set the parameters for the debate. They tell us that the resolution gives us a set of conditions and asks us to debate what we would do if those conditions were to manifest themselves, not whether or not those conditions are possible. As such, any position suggesting that such a conflict cannot arise, or that the United Nations should somehow pursue both at once, are seemingly excluded from the resolution. This being said, positions that deny or avoid this conflict will doubtless appear, and will be discussed later on. Regardless, it does seem that the topic was specifically worded to preclude such positions, which is important to discuss when arguing against them.

The second question that the phrase “when in conflict” raises is the type of conflict that is being discussed. The United Nations is a body with finite resources. As such, the conflict could be of a monetary nature: we can afford to save a forest or build a factory, but not both. A second, and perhaps more important, type of conflict involves approving or denying projects that might reduce poverty because of their environmental impact. A classic example of such a project is China’s propensity for building coal-burning power plants, which fuel industrial growth but pollute egregiously. China, with its eye on economic development, chooses to continue construction; however, if the United Nations were administrating the project, the proper course of action would be up for debate. While the type of conflict in question may not change the way in which it is dealt with, since the fundamental question that underlies both conflicts is similar, debaters should consider both types when formulating their advocacies.

“The United Nations”

This resolution is set apart from most others in that it provides us with an actor that is not the United States of America. The identity of the resolution’s actor is important because it sets limits on the type of action that can be taken. The United Nations is, unfortunately, a body riddled with flaws, with inefficiency and inefficacy at the top of the list. It takes into account the opinions of dozens of nations, each of which has its own priorities and strength within the organization. Both sides need to be able to determine whether or not the United Nations would actually be able to implement the actions that they are calling for. Equally important is that debaters keep an eye on whether or not the United Nations is capable of pulling off their opponent’s advocacy, since pointing out the infeasibility of plan is a sure way to damage it.

“Global Poverty Reduction”

While many different metrics are used to determine who falls below the line of poverty, it is almost inarguable that at least a billion people in the world meet some definition of it. Poverty can arise from many different sources, but it always means a huge decrease in living standards. Impoverished people lack access to good healthcare and nutrition, and so are more likely to fall victim to disease; they lack access to education and job training and so are less likely to be able to get good jobs. Little more need be said. Poverty is disastrous not only in its immediate human impact, but in it’s self-perpetuating nature: the poorest people are least likely to have access to the means to lift themselves out of it.

Poverty reduction can take place in a number of ways. One of the most prevalent is simply in the form of material aid: wealthy nations (often funneled through the United Nations) donate surplus food, medicine, shelter, etcetera, in order to help needy people survive. Aid will probably always be a large part of the poverty-reduction package, since there are few other ways of fulfilling urgent needs that sustain life.

However, it is often criticized as disrupting the market for whatever commodity it provides, and encouraging long-term poverty. For example, let’s say that a poor country with a population that exceeds its means to provide for itself is experiencing a rice shortage. The United Nations responds by sending in a lot of rice. While this would feed the people in the short term, it would also depress the cost of rice because the supply would explode. This would discourage farmers from growing rice in the first place, and make the people even more dependant on foreign aid.
Furthermore, the rich supply of food encourages people to continue to overpopulate the land, which will never be able to support the growing population. In such a situation, the withdrawal of aid, coupled with an artificially supported population that cannot feed itself, creates a recipe for humanitarian catastrophe.

A second form of poverty reduction comes in the form of fostering native industries, through grants or else by sending in experts to advise and guide local entrepreneurs. This type of development tends to be more sustainable in the long term in that, if successful, the aid can be removed and the local economy can still prosper. Additionally, it creates a foundation to build on: once low-level industries exist, people can afford to improve them, perhaps get an education, and so on, until living standards rise. This is not to say that such projects are without flaws. Industries everywhere are dependant on market conditions, and even the most successful of new factories or industries may fail for reasons beyond the control of their owners and workers. Furthermore, since outsiders often administrate these new industries, they may produce goods for which there is really no market, or act in ways that are unsuitable to local conditions.

An element of poverty reduction that will undoubtedly arise in rounds is that of “sustainable development”. While much economic development relies on the construction of dirty, polluting industries, in order to provide jobs quickly, a growing segment of the international community has decried such projects as excessively short-term in nature. Proponents of sustainable development advocate replacing them with forms of aid that work with, rather than against, the natural world. For example, impoverished people might be taught to harvest valuable products in moderation from a forest, rather than burn it down to make room for ranching. Although evidence shows that some such projects have been successful in terms of job creation and environmental protection, their practicality is still a matter of debate.

“Environmental Protection”

Environmental protection can occur by either action or omission, and the resolution can take both into account. Protection that occurs through action seeks to undo some earlier wrong, such as cleaning up an oil spill, or to prevent future degradation, in the case of creating standards for pollution. Such projects may conflict with poverty reduction because they demand us to set aside land or resources that could otherwise be used for more immediately profitable enterprises. Protection that occurs through omission simply entails not embarking on environmentally unsustainable development projects.

Due to science’s imprecise understanding of ecology, environmental protection is not always successful. Human interference with an ecosystem, even with the best of intentions, often overlooks the subtle connections that hold it together. That being said, because of humankind’s incredible ability to destroy nature, almost any action that curbs this potential will be helpful to some extent.

Pro Argumentation

We Are Members of the Human Community

Although simple and straightforward, the most compelling argument available to the Pro team may be the simple fact that, first and foremost, global poverty reduction is about helping people in dire need. In this resolution that begs us to ask moralistic questions, Pro teams can draw on a rich philosophical tradition that puts human beings at the center of the ethical sphere. Although debaters can feel free to delve into such thinking and writing, the argument really doesn’t require a great deal of warranting because of its intuitive appeal.

Poverty Reduction Leads to Environmental Protection

It is very likely that in almost every debate, both sides will claim that they can achieve both of the resolution’s goals by taking their preferred action. It’s important not to lose sight of your own advocacy when getting into these debates, and also to remain realistic. Most judges will not be willing to buy a claim that by taking one side, you can get everything; nevertheless, these arguments can be persuasive, and, if they are successful, can wreck an opposing team’s strategy.

The basic Pro argument in this vain would state that by providing material wealth to a society, it can then become more environmentally conscientious. Although it might seem counterproductive to build smoke-coughing factories to save the environment, the long-term effects may be beneficial because of the income that communities garner from such industry. First, a country that is extremely poor can worry about almost nothing but feeding and clothing itself. As such, poor nations usually lack the resources to protect their environments. Although the United Nations would supposedly fill this role, the Pro could argue that by improving the economy of a nation, we could allow that nation to successfully take its own environmental policy under control, freeing up resources to allow the United Nations to do other work. Of course, speculation abounds as to whether or not a wealthy people will choose to spend their hard-earned money on environmental protection. Comparatively, however, it would seem that spending some of larger budget on preservation is better than spending none of a smaller budget, even if the increase is only marginal.

Poverty Reduction is Key to Solving Terrorism

The United Nations seeks to enhance global security, and so is deeply concerned with the issue of terrorism. Research and intuition tell us that a desperate, impoverished person is more likely to join in the dangerous enterprise of terrorism than one who has security. The young men who fight American soldiers in the Middle East often become fighters because they have no other options in life, and a disproportionate number of terrorists come from poor nations. As such, by alleviating poverty in these areas, the Pro could claim to provide alternatives. It would have to be made clear that the poverty reduction would be occurring in areas in which terrorism is an issue, or else it would be ineffective.

Con Argumentation

Species Depletion is Harmful and Irreversible

Although it may sound callous, the Con could argue that while the human species is in good shape, the species that are challenged by polluting industry are not. Humans are causing extinction to occur at a massive rate; some estimates predict that by 2100, half of all animal species will have died off. Not only does this mean that humans will never be able to see or experience these animals again, but it may also have harsher consequences. If food webs become excessively disrupted, they may collapse or become distorted. If these food webs involve staple crops that humans eat, hunger would result; if they involve species that carry diseases, pandemics could occur. Because it is extremely difficult to repair environmental damage, the Con could argue that we ought never promote policies that could lead to disrupting natural ecosystems because of the impact they could have on human beings.

Global Warming is the Worst Threat to Humanity

A compelling Con argument may be found in the science of climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the world is becoming rapidly warmer, and even a change in a few degrees could have drastic consequences. As icebergs melt, the sea will engulf seaside communities; as temperatures rise, extreme weather will become more and more frequent. The human cost is clear. Even in the mildest of situations, global warming would be one of the greatest catastrophes in history. If it is harsher than climatologists predict, it could result in human extinction. The Con could thus argue that although poverty reduction may save a few lives in the short term, preventing global warming is the most important issue because its magnitude is greater than that of all other problems.

—
Jared Dummitt debated for four years at Stuyvesant High School. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, he was the champion of the Newark Debates (2009) and the Northeast Championships (2008), finalist at the Kaiser at Monticello High School (2008), and the top speaker at the Princeton Classic (2008) and the University of Pennsylvania Round Robin (2008). As a Public Forum debater, he was a three-time qualifier to the NCFL Grand National Tournament.

Popularity: 4% [?]

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 24th, 2009 at 10:47 pm and is filed under Public Forum Debate, Victory Briefs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.