Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.

Thank you for your argument! I will begin with my own and then address the pro case."This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them." In July of 1979, President Jimmy Carter told the nation about the realities of our modern world. With the immense power struggle continuing between many developed nations such as the United States and China, energy production will become key to who will dominate the new century. It is because i agree with president carter and believe in the necessity of energy that i negate the resolution as stated by the pro. Aristotle believed that happiness is what all actions are completed for. We as human beings do things in order to maximize happiness, and we institute governments in order to achieve the greatest amount of security and happiness in a whole society. We must value happiness in this round, because all of our actions are done as a means to happiness.In order to achieve happiness, many things must be provided to us. When a government has been instituted in a society, it is there job to facilitate our happiness to the best of their abilities. I will use energy as my criterion, the most efficient way of achieving happiness in our modern age. Everything that we do must first be facilitated by energy of some sort, so we must prioritize the production of energy in order to achieve happiness.I accept all of my opponents definitions. Observation: OughtBecause the resolution uses the word ought, my opponent must establish that a government has a moral obligation to protect the environment.Contention 1: The necessity of energy.In an article posted on CNN.com by Fareed Zakaria, he states that whoever is to dominate in the 21st century must have the energy problem figured out. The U.S. and her citizens have long enjoyed the success of our country as the world superpower in military, economics and politics. However we cannot hope to stay competitive without the production of energy. Those nations such as Saudi Arabia that have control of a large energy supply such as oil will always be competitive because of their stranglehold on nations such as the United States, and everyone that has ever purchased gas knows that this stranglehold is getting tighter and tighter as time goes on. When it comes to a decision of either drilling oil in Alaska to help ease the economic stress on citizens or not because of a possible disruption of the ecosystem, a just government must prioritize producing energy and increasing the happiness of its own people. A governments responsibility is to protect and enhance the lives of its citizens. A government that fails to do so to the best of its abilities is no longer just.I now move on to my opponents case.First on the value and criterion. He uses the value of life, clearly defined along with humanity, however we must see that life should not be the ultimate value because it will always exist. When discussing a just society, we already have a society with people in it in existence. To value life is to value something that already is there and will continue to be in the society. It is not contingent upon anything, including his criterion. We must prefer the cons value of happiness, because while we always have life, we do not always have happiness, as happiness is contingent upon many things. For his criterion, he uses the environmental wisdom worldveiw. This states that human life is not the most important thing on this earth, however he tells you the opposite when he values life and humanity. His criterion strictly conflicts his value at this point. Furthermore, his criterion also does nothing to promote his value. He does not prove at any point that if we respect the rest of nature, we achieve more life. He must draw this link in order for his value to be upheld. In his framework, he states on his observation two that we cant count the green movement over producing electricity. However the resolution states environmental concerns, which is exactly the reason that the green movement began. Dont let him attempt to restrict the debate in this framework, it must be rejected. On his contention 1 of Chernobyl, he cites the loss of thirty lives as the dire effects of energy production however i have three responses to this. First, although one bad nuclear situation has occured in the past, we cant ignore the benifits of nuclear technology. 35,000 cancer patients in the U.S. alone rely on isotopes produced in nuclear plants. So while many people died in this one instance, many other lives are being supported because of nuclear power. Second, at the end of the argument, he states that not only do we harm the environment, however he never gives any damages to the environment. He ignores the pro burden of supporting environmental concerns but rather attempts to create a level ground for both sides, in that event the con must win. And third, because he opens the door of using examples of failed energy production attempts, i will combat that with many more successes. The fact that you are on a computer reading this is a success. You turned on your lights when you walked into the room. Success. Many medical procedures using power have saved thousands and thousands of lives. When weighing examples, as all of his contentions attempt to do, the con side will always win. On to his contention 2, he gives the example of the toxic waste dump site at love canal. However this contention does not fit into this topic at all. The company dumping the toxic waste was a chemical and plastic company. Not an energy production facility. This event is no example of valuing energy production or environmental protection. It is not topical and so please disregard.Finally, on his contention 3 he gives the example of the gulf oil spill. As horrible of an event that was, we must once again weigh it on the scale. The U.S. consumes almost 21 million barrels of oil in a single day, giving us countless benifits. To say that we must eliminate the use of oil in order to prevent an oil spill every once in a great while is completely illogical. The absence of oil in todays world would completely collapse the economy. Oil is used in transportation, production, creating electricity and many other necessities. The lack of oil would eliminate the happiness of people on a large scale, which is not favorable in a society.In conclusion, we can see that all of my opponents arguments hinge off of his three examples, which i have proven are heavily outweighed when compared to the benifits of energy production. Look to these flaws and his value criterion contradiction and we can see that the pro has no ground. Thank you.