Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

I would like my opponent to be familiar with the forms of Lincoln-Douglas debate, with a proper value structure. Also, the full resolution to be debated is: When in conflict, developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction. PLEASE NOTE THE "WHEN IN CONFLICT" PART WHICH I COULD NOT FIT ONTO TOPIC. As this is Lincoln-Douglas debate, no formal evidence is needed. Therefore, I will not accept arguments where my opponent tries to force the burden of proof upon me. Since this is not policy debate, I also relieve myself of the burden of constructing a policy. I anticipate a good round, and wish my opponent the best of luck. My value for today"s round will be morality, defined as a code of conduct that, if followed, ensures righteousness, and exists universally. I am justified in defending a value of morality, as ought is used in the resolution, which Encarta defines as "be morally right" meaning "ought" is the evaluative term in the resolution meaning in the round debaters are to determine which policy, environmentalism or resource extraction, is moral. Therefore, morality is an applicable value to today"s debate, and is the paramount value as well, as both sides, aff and neg, are attempting to achieve morality by debating a resolution including the word "ought". My value criterion for today"s round will be upholding the greatest good for the greatest number, also known as consequentialism. If we were to sacrifice consequentialism, we would not be achieving morality, as the greatest good would not be upheld, which means that the right action is not taking place. Contention 1: If a country is in conflict, it needs to get out of conflict as quickly as possible in order to create the most good. The natural resources of that country are often what fuels the conflict that started in the first place. If resource extraction were to take priority over environmental protection, each warring side would get what they need, and therefore have no need to fight. If there is no need to fight, there will be peace, which upholds the greatest good for the greatest number. Contention 2: Environmental protection does not create the greatest good for the greatest number. All men benefit the most from resource extraction, as it creates a civil environment, which is the hallmark of our very sentience. If we were to prioritize environmental protection instead of resource extraction, we would take away those measures that ensure our civility. Civility creates the greatest good for the greatest number, as all men benefit from civilization. Contention 3: If we are to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction, we would be placing the good of animals and plants over the good of humans. Since consequentialism leads to morality and morality is a distinctly human value, we would not be achieving morality by placing the good of animals and plants over the good of humans. I have offered three key reasons upon why we should negate today's resolution. I await my opponent's response, and request that he/she respect the parameters I have placed on this debate.