India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Rebuttals"Arguments pertaining to how putting one side over the other allows better access to the other side in the future should not be allowed in the debate"These arguments are absolutely valid as per the rules set out in the Round 1 of this debate; the same rules that my opponent agreed to and did not seek to amend. My opponent argues that because he cannot formulate a legitimate rebuttal against this argument, it is therefore invalid. I am very familiar with this topic, and I know for a fact that there are arguments to be made against this point that are perfectly legitimate and effective. Just because my opponent cannot think of these arguments himself does not mean that he enjoys the right to disregard this argument. Allow me to establish an ethical value from which to argue:Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life. All arguments made by the Con will fit this value. The people of India are sapient human beings, and therefore benefitting them benefits sapient species, and works in favor of the ethical value set forth by Con. "A sub point"The con is willing to grant that the pros position asserts that humans are inherently superior to the environment. The con argues, for the sake of practicality and pragmatism, humans and or sapient species are inherently of a higher desireablility than other lifeforms. "B sub point First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior. "The con is willing to cede that the subjegation of non-sapient animals is a result, however, the idea that women will be subjugated is a gross use of slippery slope logical fallacy. Con asserts this:1) Sapient species are inherently superior to other forms of life, and therefore of a higher desirability2) Women are humans.3) Humans are a sapient species.4) Therefore, women are superior, and shall not be subjugated. The only way for this point to be proved even remotely would be for the pro to take the position that women can be empirically proved to be a non-sapient species, which I would like to see. "Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior. "If my opponent means to imply that "those" are human beings, again I assert that the values argued by the Con are violated by this. My opponent is only making use of gross slippery slope fallacy, and appeals to authority. Just because humans will exploit non-sapient species for their own advancement, does not mean that they will begin executing sapient species en-masse. My opponent totally fails to create a logical cause-effect relationship between the con stance and the outcomes he has elucidated. "Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life. "My opponents point again is no more than slippery slope alongside an appeal to authority. My opponent has chopped up quotes from his sources to exaggerate the impacts he has asserted, and again, provided no logical connection between the Cons ethical value, and the outcomes he has provided. Summary of Sub-point B RebuttalThis is all textbook slippery slope. The point created by pro here can be summarized as this.1. Con argues in favor of Q (strawman fallacy)2. Q always results in X, Y, and Z, (slippery slope fallacy) according to Dr. Jon Doe (Appeal to authority)3. Therefore, Con is not providing a desirable case. The pros argument up to this point is obviously totally illogical. Pros Case, and the ResolutionMy opponent is arguing that all of Cons case are examples of "anthropocentrism" and then goes on to argue why anthropocentrism is undesirable (which I have rebutted). But this argument isn't valid in the first place. Anthropocentric is defined by merriam-webster as follows: considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe. Now let's look at the resolution. "Resolved: Prioritizing Environmental protection over economic development is in the best interest of the people of India" Remember, in the R1 definitions my opponent accepted, the people was defined as follows:"People of India: The citizens of the country of India. "Therefore, all arguments must be made in the best interests of the people of India. The plants and animals of India are not citizens. Therefore, all valid arguments will take a stance in favor of anthropocentricism. SUMMARY My opponents argument is absolutely and totally invalid, as it does not argue in the best interests of the people of India, as that is an inherently anthropocentric stance, and my opponent is arguing against anthropocentrism. Furthermore, I have totally and fully rebutted every aspect of my opponents argument.