Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction w

I negate the resolution. The value is morality. First is epistemology: Moral uncertainty should lead us to default towards preserving humanity as a meta-constraint on all ethical theories. Bostrom: "there is a great option value in preserving … our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity … is … the best way … to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value." And, epistemology requires us to act in a way that minimizes negative existential risks. Bostrom: "if something is not known to be objectively safe, it is risky, … we may be uncertain about whether or not X would really be bad. But we can say that if we are not sure whether or not X would really be bad (but we are sure that X would not be good), then X is bad in … the subjective sense relevant to decision making. … [thus] we have reason to prefer that X not occur …" And, epistemology comes first because it deals with how we come to know. This means my fw functions as a meta constraint to the AC framework because it means that even under their framework we’d have to take into account existential risks. Consequentialism - Moral considerations must be based in physical facts about our mental states because the universe is causally closed. Papineau:[1] "the conservation of energy does imply that … if mental or vital forces arose spontaneously, then there would be nothing to ensure that they never led to energy increases. … Detailed physiological research, … gave no indication of any physical effects that cannot be explained in terms of basic physical forces that also occur outside living bodies. … since the only laws governing behaviour are those connecting behaviour with physical antecedents, mental events can only be causes of behaviour if they are identical with those physical antecedents." This means util since there are no side-constraints in nature – suffering is a mental state which we have a reason to avoid. Even respect for the rationality of persons mandates consequentialism. Cummiskey[2]: "If I sacrifice some for the sake of others, … I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have … unconditional … worth” … but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others … The concept of the end-in-itself thus … dictates that one … sacrifice some to save many." Thus, the criterion is minimizing suffering. My contention is that economic development does a better job of minimizing suffering than environmental protection. First, developing countries are sitting on billions and trillions of dollars of resources. Retrieving those resources will help them grow. Oxfam ‘09: “For … countries that depend on extractive industries, the income generated … could be … an opportunity … countries … could use hydrocarbon exports to significantly increase their public spending per capita on education and health … Bolivia saw oil and gas revenues rise from $448m in 2004 to $1.531bn in 2006, due to the redistribution of profits agreed in contracts after 2005, … Indonesia and Norway are good examples of countries with significant revenue from natural resource extraction, …” And, the more profit we make, the more we can reduce the impact to the environment. This means negating solves both the problems of the affirmative by reducing environmental impacts, and the problems of the negative by improving the economic conditions of developing countries and reducing the suffering of their people. Berstam: “The existing … long-term data suggest not only non-proportionality of pollution with respect to economic growth, but also non-linearity and concavity. … it shows the pollution decelerates over decades of economic growth. Even global aggregate data, … still shows marked deceleration of emissions.” Moreover, we can use the profits we make from create new and better ways to acquire resources and reduce the environmental impact. Barbier: “we are on the verge of … the “Age of Ecological Scarcity” … environmental degradation … may be occurring on such an unprecedented scale … If humankind is to succeed … we need to find the next … natural resources and adapt economic development accordingly. This will require developing low-carbon sources of energy, processes of production and technological innovation that require less environmental degradation … It will also mean instigating … changes, … to foster a new era of “sustainable” economic development.” So in short, negating gives us more money and economic growth in the short and long term. We can then transition that profit into new ways to reduce the environmental impacts and help the environment in the long term. This means by negating we solve the problems of both the aff world and the neg world. Then, go to his case.My opponent has literally just 100% plagiarised his round. From "Definitions ..." to "Affirmative position of the topic." is from this linkhttp://everydaydebate.blogspot.com...And from "Aff Position ..." through the rest of his round is from this link.http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com...Don't let him get away with just plagiarising and drop his case as his behavior just encourages people to not come up with original arguments and case writing, which harms the educational value of debating. If we're not learning how to make and write cases and arguments ourselves, we're not learning anything except how to press ctrl + c and ctrl + v (copy and paste). And education is important to debate because it provides out-of-round value for debate. Once the competition has ended the only thing left that matters is what the debaters learned from the experience. Without that, the debate doesn't matter.Moreover, my opponent is blatantly cheating. The character limit for the debate is 8,000, and my opponent's round was 24,436 characters. This is a blatant violations of the rules of the debate that he himself created, therefore he should be dropped immediately. Moreover, using more characters than the character limit allows is a violation of fairness in debate, which merits you drop him immediately. It's blatantly unfair if he can use three rounds worth of characters in a round where I can only use the alloted characters fairly provided. And fairness is important to debate because the entire point of the judge's role is to decide who did the better debating, but doing so becomes impossible when one side begins to cheat. But furthermore, even if you limit his case to 8k characters, his case cuts off before he reads literally any of his evidence (the 8000th character is ending at "This is the first of a two part exploration of the Affirmative position of" (feel free to check for yourself in word). So limiting him to fair play leaves him with literally no argument to advance. And, this isn't something that you can correct with just a conduct violation, as he's clearly prone to doing it in more than just this debate. He's already done it in other debates as well (http://www.debate.org...). So it's time to skip from just the conduct violation and just vote him down to discourage this kind of attitude. Only giving him the loss will be sufficient punishment.And this isn't something that can be rectified by him just adhering to the character limit for the rest of the debate because the damage is already done. I've already had to spend a whole lot of time and characters trying to cover his abuse to check for it, so the debate can never be "fair" again. He can't take back his round and make it adhere to the character limit, so punish him for doing it.With what little characters I have left, let's respond to his case:First off, there's absolutely no kind of framework in his case. He has no value, no criterion, no burden system of any kind to weigh his contentions off of. This means that you're a) having to look to my framework, which I'm fulfilling much better than he is, and b) if he doesn't link his contentions into my framework he cannot weigh offense off of them. This means that if he's not linking into my framework, he cannot affirm the resolution. Second off, he literally can't link into my framework. By valuing environmental protection, we're just leaving the resources that we can use to advance human interests such as health and education or (gasp!) reducing the environmental impacts of taking those resources. This means that he literally cannot be minimizing the suffering of the developing world because he's letting them just maintain, which only prolongs their suffering.As an interesting side-note, his case specifically says "Nevertheless, I believe the real strength of the Affirmative case will reside in the value framework. Aff must not lose their value or they will be in for a fight." when he doesn't have a value. [1] David Papineau, “Naturalism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007. [2] Cummiskey, David. Kantian Consequentialism. Published by Oxford University Press. 1996. (p.142).