The motion that my team and I debated in favour of was that “establishing a poverty line will help minimize inequality”. Since the general notion in our modern society is in favour of the poverty line, agreeing with it generally came on its own. As I further noticed during our research most of the opinion surrounding the topic were criticisms of certain aspects of the poverty line, they pointed out its defects and weaknesses but none of the arguments really came forward to denounce the poverty line. They all seemed to build upon each other, all of them inciting a particular point that added to the depth and complex nature of this system of economic balance we have established. The argument that I decided to put forward was the misunderstood and overlocked nature of the poverty line. Throughout the debate, the poverty line was accepted as a defining value that cut off certain people in society, a fixed determinant of whether or not an individual had the basic capacity to survive. From what was discussed in the debate (mostly from the opposite team), the poverty line could have been easily been interpreted almost as a tangible and physical line; drawn by a foreign country. A sort of laceration between communities conducted by an inhumane force that would decide which of them would receive the equally needed help; eventually ending up with the discrimination of the group that is positioned right above the standards of the poverty line. However, as my team and I tried to demonstrate, the poverty line is not a thing on its own, it is a value for governments to understand. In order for an administrative body to help, there must be a way for them to establish the general need, and form an understanding of the situation. Simply by the use of common sense, there has to be a limit somewhere. this limit isn’t fixed and shouldn’t be interpreted as the determining factor that decides the distribution of financial aid.