"This House Believes that individuals have a moral obligation to prioritise the future of humanity over their Prosperity today."

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: ""This House Believes that individuals have a moral obligation to prioritise the future of humanity over their Prosperity today."". Your opponent's style: Bo Seo

I'll make the opening argument that individuals DO have a moral obligation to prioritize humanity's future over personal prosperity today.Look, I understand the temptation to chase immediate rewards. But here's the brutal math we can't ignore: climate change will cost a typical child born in 2024 at least around $500,000 over the course of their lifetime—and possibly as much as $1 million [1]. That's not some distant theoretical loss. That's your children's inheritance being burned away right now. Every 2°C rise would reduce output and consumption by 50 percent—twice as big as the Great Depression but going on forever [2]. We're not just talking about tightening belts; we're talking about permanent economic devastation that makes today's sacrifices look like pocket change. The moral obligation isn't complex philosophy—it's basic math. Climate damages are six times larger than the mitigation costs needed to limit global warming to two degrees [3]. Every dollar we don't spend preventing this crisis costs our kids six dollars in damages. What parent knowingly chooses to saddle their children with debt six times larger than what they could pay today? We're not asking people to live in poverty. We're asking them to be smart investors in the only portfolio that actually matters—a livable future. The real question isn't whether we can afford to act. It's whether we can afford not to. [1] Consumer Reports/ICF study, 2024 [2] Harvard Gazette, August 2024 [3] Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, April 2024

Your argument sounds compelling until you realize who's actually paying the price for these grand moral calculations. You're asking ordinary families to sacrifice their financial security today based on projections that developing countries need $387 billion per year in adaptation financing [1]. That's not coming from the wealthy—it's coming from middle-class paychecks through carbon taxes and green regulations. Here's the brutal reality you're missing: the people who can least afford these sacrifices today are the same ones who'll suffer most from climate impacts tomorrow. When you price working families out of homeownership with expensive green building codes, when you make their commutes unaffordable with fuel restrictions, when you force them to choose between heating and eating—you're not creating a moral society, you're creating a two-tiered system where only the rich can afford virtue. Your math assumes perfect global cooperation and flawless policy execution. But look at what's actually happening—international adaptation finance declined by 15 percent to $21 billion in 2021 [1] while the need keeps growing. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes continue polluting while democratic countries handicap their own economies. The real moral obligation is ensuring people can survive today's economic pressures so they have the stability to think beyond tomorrow's rent payment. A family losing their home to foreclosure isn't contemplating humanity's future—they're contemplating survival. Your moral framework collapses when it demands sacrifices from people who have nothing left to sacrifice.

make it in WSDC format

**Madam Speaker, Honorable Judges,** My learned friend presents compelling statistics, but they reveal exactly why their moral framework is fundamentally flawed. The adaptation finance gap stands at $187-359 billion annually, yet even doubling current funding would only reduce this gap by 5 percent [1]. This isn't a problem money can solve—it's a problem money creates. The proposition demands ordinary families sacrifice their economic security today for projections that wealthy nations consistently fail to fund. While my friend quotes Consumer Reports about future costs to children, they ignore who's paying the immediate price: working families crushed by green policies that make basic necessities unaffordable. Consider the moral perversity here. You're asking a single mother choosing between heating and groceries to prioritize humanity's future while fossil fuel executives "reap massive profits and subsidies" [8-18]. You're demanding sacrifice from those least able to give it while those most responsible for the crisis profit from both the problem and the supposed solutions. The real moral obligation runs opposite to the proposition. We must ensure people have economic stability today so they can participate in long-term thinking tomorrow. A family facing foreclosure isn't contemplating carbon footprints—they're contemplating survival. Your moral framework collapses when it demands sacrifice from people who have nothing left to sacrifice. The proposition's logic defeats itself: if climate change truly threatens our children's future, then impoverishing their parents today ensures they'll lack the resources to adapt tomorrow. True moral responsibility means building resilient communities that can weather both economic and climate storms—not choosing between them. **Thank you.** [1] UN Environment Programme Adaptation Gap Report 2024