"In developing countries, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction wh

I affirm the resolution: The value is justice defined as giving each their due. Justice must recognize and provide for the capabilities of living organisms. Nussbaum writes: The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22 “the dignity of a form of life that possesses both deep needs and abilities. … is to take into account the rich plurality of activities that sentient beings need — all those that are required for a life with dignity. … that it is a waste and a tragedy when a living creature has an innate capability for some functions that are evaluated as important and good, but never gets the opportunity to perform those functions. Failures to educate women, failures to promote adequate health care, failures to extend the freedoms of speech and conscience to all citizens — all those are treated as causing a kind of premature death” Thus justice must account for the dignity of life forms and allow their capabilities to flourish. These capabilities include things like sensations, life, and bodily health. All capabilities are equal and trade off with one another. Only this approach to justice respects the unique capabilities of each individual species and subject. Nussbaum 2 writes: The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22 “There is much to be learned from reflection on the continuum of life. Capacities do crisscross and overlap: A chimpanzee may have more capacity for empathy and perspectival thinking than a very young child, or than an older child with autism. And capacities that humans sometimes arrogantly claim for themselves alone are found very widely in nature. But it seems wrong to conclude from such facts that species membership is morally and politically irrelevant. A child with mental disabilities is actually very different from a chimpanzee, though in certain respects some of her capacities may be comparable. Such a child's life is difficult in a way that the life of a chimpanzee is not difficult: … There is something blighted and disharmonious in her life, whereas the life of a chimpanzee may be perfectly flourishing” Thus the criterion is respecting the capabilities of each individual. My contention is that justice must recognize the capabilities of animals. Sub-point a: Animals have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish. Nussbaum 3 writes: The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22 “The same attitude to natural powers that guides the approach in the case of human beings guides it in the case of nonhuman animals: Each form of life is worthy of respect, and it is a problem of justice when a creature does not have the opportunity to unfold its … power … and to lead a life with dignity. The fact that so many animals never get to move around, enjoy the air, exchange affection with other members of their kind — all that is a waste and a tragedy, and it is not a life in keeping with the dignity of such creatures. … seeing our ethical duties to animals as direct, not indirect, and also in its starting point, a basic concern for sentient life, not just rational life … it takes an interest not just in pleasure and pain, but in complex forms of life.” Thus similar to humans animals can be influenced in positive and negative ways. Rollin writes: Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics Bernard E. Rollin.Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1/2, Papers Presented at a Conferenceon Reasonable Partiality, (Amsterdam, October 2003) (Apr., 2005), pp. 105-121Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org.... “any sentient or conscious being has states that matter to it in a positive or negative way - pleasure matters to an animal in a positive way, pain or fear in a negative way. [The Animal] can value what happens to it, it has intrinsic value. Given the logic of morality, we should extend our moral attention to those states that matter to it when our actions affect that being … not all … of our moral attention focuses on reason … Most of it … focuses on feeling, on not hurting people physically or mentally, or helping them be happy or escape from suffering. So if human beings are ends in themselves, why not animals, since they too have feelings and goals that they value?” The capabilites approach is not a prohibition on killing animals or using them at all but is rather a approach that ensures animal flourishing is calculated as well. Daws 2 writes: Kami Daws. Food, Inc., the Capabilities Approach, and the Right to Healthful Food. Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Languages, Cultures, and World Affairs, College of Charleston Volume 9 (2010): 47-63 2010. “there may be cases where the perceivable mistreatment of animals is potentially justifiable, such as the killing of animals for food and the experimentation on them for medical research … Nussbaum never explicitly states the killing of animals for food is justifiable, she implies that it is acceptable as long as the slaughtering is humane and painless for the animals .. Nussbaum does argue “against killing at least the more complexly sentient animals for food” … while research that inflicts the risk of disease, pain, or premature death on animals is immoral, it is possible that research to promote human health and safety is acceptable if experimentation is absolutely necessary and is done humanely … Nussbaum accepts human uses of animals as long as the treatment of them does not violate basic animal entitlements.”And, resource extraction i.e. the Keystone XL Pipeline harms animals. The Center for Biological Diversity (http://tinyurl.com...) talks about the impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline and how it would put ten different endanagered species at risk of extinction. This is something the AC rejects. And the AC solves for these harms because we're not using the same methods as the NC, which perpetuate these harms, thus we protect animals. Let's touch on the NC:1. There's absolutely no impact coming off of his case. Even if you buy his framework there's no reason why that means you as a judge pull the trigger negative. I'm the only one with any kind of impact to even extend, so you're automatically defaulting affirmative.2. TURN: AC best fulfills the NC framework since I'm keeping animals around so we can get this kind of competition and flucuation. Negating removes animal specieses from the picture, which breaks the natural flow of things. So even if you buy his framework, you vote aff.3. I don't bite into the harms of the NC because I'm not advocating for a system of morality. The NC has no link into the AC, don't let him try to get some kind of impact that way.4. Even if you buy the NC framework, he gives you no alternative. He's claiming that we need some way to critique the morality of the status quo but gives no solution to his perceived harms of the status quo. So even if you want to vote negative he gives you no way to solve for the harms he claims the AC has. So, to conclude:1. I'm giving you a clear line of logic in the AC. We ought to value animals. Resource extraction harms animals whereas protecting the environment doesn't. Thus, you affirm.2. Even if you don't buy the AC, the NC isn't even a case. It has no link into the actual resolution, nor does it have a link into the AC since I'm not advocating for a system of morality. It has no way to solve for the harms it says the AC has, and has no impact to actually extend out as offense. 3. But even if you buy the NC, I best fulfill the NC since I keep more specieses around for increased competition and keep a more natural flow within the environment.