Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I would like to provide a brief road map for the second round. I will first rebuild my case and attack my opponent's, but save my voting issues for the final round.First I would like to address my value of Quality of Life. My opponent said that their side best achieves a higher quality of life because the money from resource extraction goes to the people. However in many developing countries this is not the case. A lot of developing countries have extremely corrupt governments. An example would be the Philippians where most of the money gathered from resource extraction (such as cyanide fishing) goes straight to the government, rather than the people, therefore quality of life is best achieved on the affirmative side because of the disastrous affects resource extraction can have on the environment.As for my criterion of teleology, I will address my opponent's question: "Would sacrificing many human lives for the sake of our future be moral under this theory?" In answer to the question, yes. In a sense, that is exactly what war is. For example, the civil war. Had brave men not given their lives to fight against slavery, America would have taken much longer to put an end to that horrible ordeal.My opponent attacked my first contention by bringing up that studies show pollution decelerates with decades of economic growth. Pollution is defined as: "The action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use." So they are claiming that if during the process of extraction resources either land, water, or air becomes unsuitable for use it will rejuvenate itself over time, however my opponent gave no examples of this taking place in a developing country. Imagine the deforestation in Albania. If they kept cutting down trees (which contributes to land, water, and air pollution) the trees are not going to start growing back as we continue to cut them down. Had Albania not started prioritizing environmental protection, the situation would have only gotten worse. In attempt to attack my second contention, my opponent brought up that poverty increases when environmental protection takes precedence over resource extraction because of the jobs and wealth provided by resource extraction. I will first address the jobs. Many of the jobs that are provided in the resource extraction department of developing countries involve child labor. Countries use children as cheap, readily available, workers. Child labor pays low and is extremely dangerous, so the jobs do not provide a surplus of money for the citizens. Now I will address the money. As I mentioned earlier, developing countries often have corrupt governments. The money that is obtained from resource extraction is going to go to the government, rather than the citizens of the country. As my opponent attacked my third contention, they mentioned that prioritizing environmental protection will not fix the issues within the government about mismanagement of resources. I ask readers to consider this: If a country has corruption and problems with management of resources that result in the resource curse, would this not be a reason enough to focus on environmental protection rather than resource extraction so that the problem can be avoided altogether? My opponent said that "until my opponent can give an example of ONE single country that has developed without resources or resources severely regulated this contention completely falls in today's debate" The affirmative is not attempting to abolish resource extraction. Also, my contention was not about how developing countries can survive without resource extraction, it was about how developing countries cannot survive excessive resource extraction. Before developing countries can extract resources, they need to make sure they ensure environmental stability. I now move on to attack my opponent's case:My opponent's value is social development. They claimed that economic progress is necessary for the development of the country. Social development is important, but not as important as protecting our environment. Again, The affirmative side is not attempting in any way to abolish resource extraction. The affirmative is only saying that economic protection should take precedence in instances where it conflicts with resource extraction. So when resource extraction is not hurting the environment, by all means we should extract resources. Often times, as mentioned in my third contention, resource extraction actually hinders economic development because of the resource curse. My opponent stated that "keeping the environment safe should not be put above education, safety, and growth of humans in the country (especially those in poverty)" Environmental protection has nothing to do with education, and it can only promote safety because bad environmental conditions will hurt humans. My opponent's criterion is utilitarianism which is the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people. It is important to observe that there are instances where utilitarianism can be achieved on the affirmative side. Because a high quality of life is achieved by prioritizing environmental protection over resource extraction, utilitarianism is achieved because the citizens will be satisfied with conditions that make life more than a struggle for survival, rather than conditions that involve poor economic conditions, poverty, and child labor. My opponent's first contention stated that pollution decelerates over decades of economic growth. As I mentioned before, my opponent could not name a country where the level of pollution actually got lower as the excessive resource extraction continued. My opponent's second contention stated that ppoverty increases without the jobs and wealth that come from resource extraction. As I said before, often the jobs involve child labor, and often the wealth is given directly to the government. Often times poverty can be caused by excessive resource extraction, like in the case of Lesotho, where 70% of their soil is unusable due to soil degradation. Poverty in that country is excessive because it's citizens cannot grow their own food. My opponent also stated that "poor people’s livelihoods will remain heavily dependent on natural resources: soil, water, forests and fisheries..." If we remove these resources at a rapid rate, the damage done to the environment will cannot be undone. Extracting these resources in a way that makes room for environmental protection is okay because the two are not in conflict in a situation such as that, but if we negate the resolution and remove the resources too fast we will end up with countries like Lesotho where almost nothing can grow.Therefore, I affirm.