"In developing countries, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction wh

My opponent just flat out lies and is highly abusive with his arguments, which at part of the reason you're affirming today.First, off his "contentions mishap":This is so unfairly abusive for him to save his contentional arguments to the very last round to post because it gives me far less time to respond to them. Don't let him get away with this because a) his case didn't even meet the full 8000 character limit, but rather only stopped at 5000+, which means he had plenty of space to add additional arguments to his case, and b) he specifically made this debate into a two round debate, whereas the default round setting is usually three. He chose this debate to be two rounds, therefore is forced to place new arguments in the last round on his own choosing. He could've made the debate longer but didn't, so don't let him get away with it.But even if you do weigh his contentions, you can group them:First, TURN: by using animals as a stepping stone for the advancement of mankind they open the door to the same systematic violations of rights and life that the NC inflicts onto animals. If the NC is true, man is next. Rowlands writes: Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 196 “It is impossible to view the world and everything in it primarily as a resource without this infecting the way we view each other. This is the logical culmination of the resource-based view of nature: humans are part of nature, and therefore humans are resources too. And whenever something—humans or otherwise—is viewed primarily a resource, things generally don’t go well for it. …its implications for human beings, is exemplified in our treatment of animals. …They are things to be eaten, things to be experimented on, things to be stared at, hunted or killed for our entertainment.… when you are talking about fundamental ways of conceptualizing and understanding the world, what goes around comes around. The instrumental view of animals necessarily infects our views of humans. … the dialectic by which the instrumental view of animals becomes transformed into an instrumental view of human beings, and the unfortunate consequences this transformation yields.”Thus, it's actually impossible to negate under the NC framework because valuing resource extraction as a way to advance mankind espouses this resource mindset that labels everything as just something to be used and once we use up all other resources, mankind is the next to get used. And, give me this argument because if you're going to be weighing his contentions that were posted unfairly at the very end of the debate, it's only fair that I be granted the same right as well.But then secondly, even if you buy that we ought to be using animals, you can cross-apply the conceded Daws 2 evidence that says that the AC doesn't prohibit using animals, rather that we just make sure that we respect their rights and ability to flourish as well. This means, at best, the NC offense is non-unique because I can get the same things as he can. The only difference is that I'm not killing off different specieses, which means I can keep advancing human-kind while ensuring that different animal specieses can keep competing for the top of the hierarchy. He tries to extend out his first contention as a block to this but his first contention isn't even responsive to this, don't let him get out of this.And, onto his second contention:1. There's no warrant to this argument at all.2. There's no warrant for the analytic under the argument that says "the coming and going of man will not cause destruction to systematic life nor the natural state of nature". If anything, cross apply Rowlands that shows exactly how this is GOING to happen.Now onto his responses to the AC:1. I'm not misunderstanding the argument at all. My opponent is arguing for, as he specifically states in his case, "a fluctuating system containing all species and beings struggling to be named the top of the universal hierarchy.". By putting resource extraction first, we're eliminating certain specieses from being able to compete for the top of the unviersal hierarchy, which violates his framework. This is coming out of the Center for Biological Diversity evidence in my case. This means that a) my opponent's framework is turned on itself, and b) even if you want to vote off of his framework, you still sign the ballot aff because I'm the only one keeping specieses around to keep competing, which is the entire point of the NC framework.2. I don't care that morality is some misconception of man, I don't link into morality. My opponent responds to this by saying that justice is heavily correlated with morality, but a) he never gives a warrant for how this is true, and b) his line of reasoning is entirely circular anyway. His line of reasoning is that what is just is moral, and the action is moral because it corresponds with the principles of justice, which is 100% circular. My value still comes first. It also doesn't help that he goes on to admit that justice and morality have differences anyway, so there's no link.3. My opponent blatantly lies that I don't provide a standard. I clearly state in my case, "Thus the criterion is respecting the capabilities of each individual.". Just because he doesn't want to respond to it doesn't mean it's not there. But even if you do drop it, the AC still better fulfills the NC framework anyway so I still have the vote anyway. And, there's no reason to drop me if I don't link to his case because I'm giving clear offense off of the AC still. Winning on the NC is just icing on the cake.4. My opponent tries to claim that he solves for the harms of the AC by going back to the basic natural function of nature, but a) that's exactly what's making him bite into the harms in the first place. He's trying to use animals and nature to try to restore some kind of quasi-balance, when his actions only ruin the balance and directly link him into the harms of the AC. He's not getting out of this. But also b) he doesn't even do what he claims he wants to do. By killing off different animal specieses we upset the balance that was maintained with the specieses alive in the first place. Thus by negating he's always going to be unable to fulfill his own framework.So at the end of the day this debate is super simple:1. You don't give the NC their contentions because they unfairly posted it at the last possible second when they had every option available to them not to take this abusive action. This means that the NC has no impact or actual link into the resolution.2. Even if you are giving the NC their contentional arguments, I'm refuting each of them and still proving how the NC doesn't actually make things better for man overall. 3. By eliminating specieses, it becomes impossible to return nature to it's natural balance, therfore by protecting animals the AC is always going to be doing the NC better than the negative. This means that even if you buy his case, you still vote aff.4. There's no responses to any of my arguments coming off of the AC contentions. All he does is make hasty cross-applications from his contentinos to try and pre-empt out of the debate, but a) he's not responding to the warrants in any of my cards, meaning that the actual arguments I'm making are dropped, b) I'm already turning and refuting his contentions, so there's no pre-empt possible, and c) you aren't weighing his contentions anyway, so my contentions stand.5. The NC can't link into the AC because they're killing off animals and disrespecting their rights to flourish. And since he hsa no link into his case, and he has no link into the AC, he literally has no offense coming off of the round. There's literally not a place you can sign the ballot neg.