Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Hello, Continuing. First I apologize but public health and utili were supposed to be switched as value public health and criterion utili. Looking at the Negative case there is something we must see. The affirmatives burden is to protect the environment but not the extent of the complete abolition of resource extraction which is contentions refer too. V/C Clash: My opponents value is sustainability but we can clearly see this value is upheld higher on the affirmative side and here's why. Sustainability is achieved by stabilizing a future for generations to come. If we do not make the necessary precautions in the present there will be no future environment to live in and therefore cannot be maintained and be a sustainable society. Both our criterions are the same but what we have to see is that on the affirmative side we see that some economic growth has to be sacrificed to benefit the greatest number of people. What we can see is that in order to benefit not only our own society, but all societies, we have to make the morally correct decision to protect the place we live in for the future. C1: Minor sacrifices have to be made in order to protect our future, if the environment is not protected as it is there will be no environment to protect in the future. Natural resources, while are good for a stable economy, should be collected in a way that does not harm the future generations and the proper regulations need to be out to truly protect the environment as my contentions showed. My opponent talks about these past mistakes shouldn't prevent these countries to continue to extract these resources and this directly correlates with my first contention. In the Niger Delta a full 57 percent of its water supply is poisoned and is not drinkable from oil spills. Because of this, many citizens face dehydration and undrinkable water. The only way this can be fixed is by doing the exact opposite of what my opponent states, which is looking at these past mistakes and making the corrections necessary to protect all citizens and parties involved. C2: In the second contention my opponent talks about that pollution decelerates over decades of economic growth but fundamentally, this is flawed. The amount of damage that is done from this lack of environmental protection is permanent and affects the future generations of humans whether or not it might decrease. The amount of decades before we truly protect the environment might be too late for the continuation of living in the uninhabitable environment. At the current rate of deforestation it is estimated all rainforests will be gone within 30 years; this is a clear irreversible of the affect on the environment that is devastating considering many of the plants needed for cancer treatment and other medical problems come from rain-forests. Until my opponent can bring empirical data that the decades until environmental protection is truly achieved will not already make that area uninhabitable or supporting the greater good of the people, his criterion, this contention completely falls. C3: This contention talks about environmental regulation and supply chain processes working together. I fail to see how this supports the negative stance in today's debate. Environmental regulation instead of environmental protection but what my opponent fails to realize is that environmental regulation work together with environmental protection to ensure that the environmental protection is secured. We regulate certain acts, which involve resource extraction, to protect the environment therefore prioritizing environmental protection over resource extraction. C1/R: First of all, there is no empirical data introduced that we can't reduce any extraction use for economic growth. Regulations to prioritize environmental protection may reduce some extraction for a country but does not destroy economic growth. One could argue the implication of natural disaster is a huge threat to economic growth as well, so to make the precautions necessary to protect the environment will indirectly keep economic growth going as well as securing a future as a country. C2/R: My opponent states that any future development will combat these issues with the priority of resource extraction. This is flawed because the country is in fact prioritizing resource extraction to the point of violence and monopolization which is the exact problem in this situation. The contention shows that diamond mining does not have an inevitable harm to the country if the correct regulations are made to protect the environment. The contention never states that environmental damage is not an inevitable outcome of resource extraction. C3:R: The world"s richest countries include Hong Kong, Japan,Singapore and Switzerland which do not owe their national wealth to nature and many others. What we can see from this is that protecting the environment is in fact not dependent on economic stability. The resource curse has been observed in many countries Sierra Leone has remained mired in poverty, ravaged by crippling internal warfare as local warlords have continued to fight for control over the diamond trade. Sierra Leone was the world"s poorest country in 1998 according to the World Bank (2000). A mismanagement of resources can be caused by a huge abundance.