Ecoterrorisum is jusifable

In general, I have two main points of constructive argumentation: 1) eco-terrorism further polarizes environmentalism from the populace and 2) eco-terrorism entrenches a system of false charity that protects corporations from critical reform. But first, some refutation. His First Argument: Public OpinionMy opponents argument basically boils down to this: Ecoterrorism --> More Press --> Positive Political action 1) Non-Unique: Look to the framework that I proposed for “justified”. I stated: ”…is justifiable if and only if it achieves the ends which ecoterrorists seek (which would be long term environmental change) uniquely stemming from the acts themselves. The key thing here being uniquely stemming from the act themselves. That is, it is the actions of moderate environmentalists that push for change, not the actual extremists. It’s not clear that ecoterrorism is needed to gain media attention for environmentalism. Sit-ins, marches, and parades can create just as large of a media hoard, especially since they can be performed in large number without the use of violence. 2) False Assumption: My opponent assumes that by simply gaining more press, environmentalists will be able to now talk about the real issues of environmentalism and the affects that big businesses have on the environment. This is wrong. Media outlets rarely make distinctions between groups when such an event occurs. Especially given the nation’s history with terrorism, media outlets such as CNN and Fox News tend to categorize entire groups as terrorists when events like this occur. Never does an act of violence allow moderate groups to voice rational opinions. Take for example the 9/11 attacks. Although the attacks were committed by a group of radical Muslims, every Muslim suffered from suspicion and prejudice due to media conflation. 3) No Link: After an extremist attack, companies are actually incentivized to lobby for harsher enforcement and laws against ecoterrorism. Because the companies are legally the victims, they get legal and political leverage to pass more laws. Look to the Patriot Act. Congress lobbied for harsher laws and we went to war, we didn’t pass laws to examine how our foreign policies germinated extremism in the first place. 4) Turn: This actually harms your argument because instead of people seeking environmentalist material, they will categorize all environmentalism as extremism. More on this in my constructive. Additionally, trials will be bad for the environmentalists because A) Ecoterrorists never show remorse B) The Eecoterrorists are guilty of breaking the law which means that C) The media will shroud the trial with negative characterizations of environmentalists because it sells. His Second Argument: Eco-Terrorism as a Force of Market Regulation This argument makes a lot of unfounded claims but I’ll try to simplify it as much as I can. He argues basically that ecoterrorism causes property damage, therefore companies have an incentive to create more sustainable practices. This is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) The cost of sustainability will always be greater than the cost of a couple hippies burning a tractor and 2) ecoterrorist events are so rare that insurance costs usually never rise after such an event occurs. Additionally, look to my refutation of his first argument. Ecoterrorism helps push through legislation for harsher policing and laws, meaning the corporations get to cut security and insurance costs because organizations like the FBI and CIA get involved and crack down on ecoterrorist groups more often, meaning that corporations get a larger share of public money for protection. Now onto my Constructive Points Contention One: Alienation of the Populace I already covered a lot of this in my refutation to my opponents first point. My basic premise here is that after an extremist attack, the populace that the ecoterrorists wish to seek are often alienated from environmentalism because of the attack. In fact, the reason that so many environmentalists deplore extremist attacks is because they know that it sets back the green agenda because now they become grouped with these sects. Look again to my example about Islam, the general populace don’t usually grant the benefit of the doubt. This actually polarizes the issues and places corporations as the victims (because they literally are). Whether ecoterrorism or any other form of violence, the FBI and CIA aren’t allowed to delineate between these types of threats when it comes to enforcement. In the end, this polarization leads to less discourse because polarization leads to labeling and generalization. When ecoterrorist crimes rise, FBI and CIA are actually harsher on the average environmentalist protestor because they now have justification to believe that environmentalists bomb places. In the end, the people that end up winning are the corporations that are harming the Earth, and the people who are hurt are the people who are trying to create real change through non-violent means. The basic tagline: Extremism hurts the credibility of the entire group. Regular environmentalists get treated with more suspicion, and less actual discourse occurs. Contention Two: Extremism allows Corporations to fill the Middle ground, leading to more exploitation and less inquiry. Based on my first argument, we know that when an extremist action likes ecoterrorism occurs, it creates polarization. Regular, moderate environmentalists get grouped with extremists and their cause loses credibility. When these academic environmentalists get pushed out of the middle ground, it creates a space for corporations to begin to fill the moderate sphere. We see this today with corporations like Starbucks and TOM’s shoes. Once companies have been victimized, they want to prove that they are somewhat innocent to the public sphere, so they begin to commit some minor changes in their campaign. An ecoterrorist attack presents corporations with an opportunity to exploit the extremism to make additional profit. In these cases, this does not present itself as true, authentic change in the practices of the corporation. Instead, the corporations encourage consumerism by including false environmentalism within the consumerism. The harm of this exploitation is twofold. First, it encourages additional consumerism as a means to solve the problems that consumerism creates. Consumerism and the culture of capitalism is the reason that corporations are destroying the Earth and polluting the biosphere. The reason that companies exploit the Earth in the first place is because there is demand. Unfortunately, the reason that there isn’t any systematic change is because people don’t like to be told that their actions are wrong. So, companies provide a “middle ground” where you can consume, but feel good about it! Unfortunately, this is like selling concrete to the people who’s house you just destroyed. It’s not real change or help, it is merely solving the conditions that consumerism created in the first place. Second, this false charity actually drives attention away from real change because now individuals can feel like they have played their part for the environment without actually changing their habits. Additionally, people are no longer interested in assuring that the companies actually stop the exploitative pracitces that caused the problem in the first place. As long as the company promises to "recycle" consumers feel like they have helped even though they haven't inquired to see of the company is actually exploiting slave labor or other forms of unethical business practices. Watch this video by Slavoj Zizek where he explains how this works. He talks more about poverty, but it works the same way with environmentalism. . http://www.youtube.com...ConclusionIn the end, I have turned all of my opponents case and shown how ecoterrorism does not acheive change.