Concern Debates League Phase Motions 2018-2019 - Concern Worldwide
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Concern Debates
League Phase Motions 2018-2019
On September 25th 2015, 194 countries adopted a set of goals to end
poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all, as part of
a new sustainable development agenda. Each goal has specific targets to
be achieved by the year 2030.
When launching the 17 Goals the then Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
stated that “…this can be the first generation to witness a world without extreme poverty, where all
people – not only the powerful and the privileged – can participate and contribute equally, free of
discrimination and want.”
For the goals to be reached, everyone needs to do their part: governments, the private sector, civil
society and people like you and me.
This year, once again our Concern Debate motions highlight some of the individual goals and the
challenges that we must face (and the debates we must have) if the goals are to be achieved.
Motion 1: “Individuals serious about climate change must give up eating meat”
There is no country in the world that is not experiencing first-hand
the drastic effects of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions
continue to rise, and are now more than 50 percent higher than their
1990 level. Further, global warming is causing long-lasting changes to
our climate system, which threatens irreversible consequences if we
do not take action now.
There is no question that humans are contributing to climate change through the extraction and
burning of fossil fuels used in industry, transport and the production of energy. Agriculture too is
high on the list of climate change culprits.
Agriculture is often thought of as being at the mercy of climate change, with increasing droughts and
flooding resulting in lower yields, especially across the developing world. Yet the agricultural sector
also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, itself exacerbating climate change. In
fact, recently agriculture was identified as the second biggest emitter globally, producing around 10-
13% of emissions. A substantial amount of these emissions comes from livestock farming with the
production of the gas, methane.
So…the question becomes, if we are serious about mitigating the effects of climate change, should
giving up eating meat be just one of the many things we do? DEBATE IT!
1. Individuals serious about combatting climate change, must give up eating meat
Proposing
• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-
single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less-meat-vegetarianism-
dangerous-global-warming
• https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/eco-farming/eat-more-plants/
• https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-
impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html
• https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/would-eating-less-meat-really-combat-
climate-change-a6753466.html
• https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/08/31/how-to-provide-a-protein-rich-diet-to-a-
growing-population
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/it-may-take-a-global-vegetarian-
movement-to-combat-climate-change/453762/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-
beef/535536/
Opposing:
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-
meat-dairy-soya-maize
• https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-
veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-
a8177541.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28858289
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-
beef/535536/
• https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
• https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/serious-rise-in-irish-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-figures-show-1.3306961
• https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en
• https://www.mothersofinvention.online/againstthegrain
Motion 2: “Thirty years on, the world is no closer to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic”
Health is a fundamental human right and a key indicator of sustainable
development. Poor health threatens the rights of children to education,
limits economic opportunities for men and women and increases
poverty within communities and countries around the world. In
addition to being a cause of poverty, health is impacted by poverty and
strongly connected to other aspects of sustainable development, including water and sanitation,
gender equality, climate change and peace and stability.
In recent years, notable progress in Global Health has been made, but significant challenges remain.
Thousands of new cases of HIV/AIDS continue to occur each day, billions of people are left without
access to essential medicines and millions of adults and children will suffer from undernourishment
this year.
Important breakthroughs have been made in HIV and AIDS treatment and the reduction in
transmission rates in the past decades, however the fact is, there remains no cure. HIV continues to
be a major global public health issue, having claimed more than 35 million lives so far. In 2017, 940
000 people died from HIV-related causes globally.
Sub Saharan Africa is the most affected region, with 25.7 million people living with HIV in 2017. The
African region also accounts for over two thirds of the global total of new HIV infections.
So…the question becomes, despite advances in treatment and in the absence of a cure, is the world
any closer to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic? DEBATE IT!
2. Thirty years on, the world is no closer to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic
Proposing
• http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2018/the-youth-bulge-and-hiv
• http://www.thejournal.ie/hiv-diagnoses-ireland-4070681-Jun2018/
• http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet
Opposing
• https://reliefweb.int/report/world/ending-aids-progress-towards-90-90-90-targets
• https://ourworldindata.org/hiv-aids
Motion 3: “NIKE should be applauded for standing with Colin Kaepernick”
Henry Ford once famously said “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor
business”. Consumers, investors and prospective employees are more conscious
today than ever before of the ethical and social record of companies; how they
source their products, their environmental impact, how they treat their employees
and how they ‘give back’ to the local or national community.
For larger companies Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a critical part of how they do
business, as it is a core mechanism by which they can ensure their business is sustainable.
Sustainability reporting has become more and more commonplace for larger companies with many
now reporting on the ‘non-financial’ health of the company.
Having celebrities endorse a particular product or companies standing for a cause is not new (think
Ben and Jerry’s, Innocent Smoothies, Lush, etc.). In several high profile campaigns however, the
public have pushed back against companies thought to be co-opting or cynically manipulating a
cause as a way to make money (Pepsi and Kylie Jenner we’re looking at you!).
The most recent case is Nike signing a major endorsement with Colin Kaepernick, who spearheaded
the #takeaknee movement in response to police violence against unarmed black men across the
states. There are those who applaud NIKE for keeping an important conversation alive (police
attitudes to black people and people of colour), while there are those who see nothing but a cynical,
corporate ploy for profits and brand recognition.
So…should NIKE be applauded for standing with Colin Kaepernick? DEBATE IT!
3. NIKE should be applauded for standing with Colin Kaepernick
Proposing
• https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818222/nike-colin-kaepernick-ad
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/terencemoore/2018/09/04/nike-just-did-it-with-
colin-kaepernick-and-you-should-applaud/#c82863543b4f
• https://hbr.org/2017/09/competing-on-social-purpose
• https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/nike-aren-t-stupid-colin-kaepernick-is-
more-powerful-than-ever-1.3618944• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/american-football/2018/09/03/nike-choose-colin-kaepernick-
first-nfl-player-kneel-us-anthem/
•
Opposing
• https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nike-s-kaepernick-ad-is-corporate-woke-
washing-1.3619149
• https://theconversation.com/nike-colin-kaepernick-and-the-pitfalls-of-woke-
corporate-branding-102922
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/activism-sells-brands-
social-conscience-advertising
• https://qz.com/1042298/nike-is-facing-a-new-wave-of-anti-sweatshop-protests/
Motion 4: “The global population time bomb is being defused”
In a 1968 book The Population Bomb, population biologist Paul
R. Ehrlich warned of an impending systemic collapse of a world
which was, at that time, pushing toward a human population of
4 billion. A soaring population, too great for the natural resources of the planet and the agricultural
capacity of farmers, would collapse into famine, disease and, likely, war, he argued.
The book was criticized for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions.
Ehrlich however stands by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious
flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future". He believes the book
achieved its goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought
human numbers into the debate on the human future."
Today, in 2018 the population of the world stands at 7.6 billion people, (almost double the global
population when Ehrlich wrote his book) and most development indicators show overall
improvement in the living standards of people around the world. With population growth on course
to reach 10 billion by 2050 however, there are many who argue that the population time bomb
continues to tick, and that the earth will far exceed its ‘carrying capacity’. While others argue that
with increased education, rising incomes and access to contraception the rate of growth will slow
resulting in more than enough room for all of us in world. The real problem they state, is not
population growth at all but over consumption and misuse of resources, particularly in the Global
North.
So…is the world’s growing population an unexploded time bomb, or are we finding ways to diffuse
it? DEBATE IT!
• https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-
rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation
• https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8333072-the-worldwide-population-bomb-has-
been-defused/
• https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defusing-population-bomb
• https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_population_bomb_has_it_been_defused
Opposing• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/23/why-population-growth-costs-the-
earth-roger
• https://www.allianz.com/en/about_us/open-knowledge/topics/demography/articles/110711-
world-population-growth-are-we-too-many.html/
• https://www.populationmatters.org/population-growth-attention-from-global-leaders/
Motion 5: “The United Nations has become irrelevant”
According to its Charter, the UN aims: to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war,…to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights,…to establish conditions under
which and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other
sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote
social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
In addition to maintaining peace and security, other important objectives include developing friendly
relations among countries based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination
of peoples; achieving worldwide cooperation to solve international economic, social, cultural, and
humanitarian problems; respecting and promoting human rights; and serving as a centre where
countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these various ends.
The United Nations however has been roundly criticised over the years for failing to live up to its
lofty aims…witness its ineffectiveness in the seven year old Syrian war, or in dealing with Israel’s
treatment of the Palestinian people. Accusations of corruption, a bloated bureaucracy and being
nothing more than a talking shop, have convinced many that the United Nations is no longer
relevant.
So…has the United Nations outlived its usefulness? In today’s world, is the United Nations no longer
relevant? DEBATE IT!
4. The United Nations has become irrelevant
Proposing
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/10/un-failing-league-of-nations-
isis-boko-haram
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/should-we-axe-the-united-nations-
a7327696.htm
• https://www.cfr.org/interview/crisis-relevance-un
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/10/un-failing-league-of-nations-
isis-boko-haram
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/un-is-still-trying-to-tackle-the-worlds-problems-as-if-it-
were-1945-says-saudi-prince-turki.html
Opposing
• https://www.pennlawreview.com/debates/index.php?id=1
• https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/02/1003221
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/how-can-the-un-meet-the-needs-of-the-21st-
century/You can also read
