Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Side note: no worries, I thought they might be flipped but didn't want to act on that assumption. I'll begin by going down the flow (neg then aff) and then concluding with some voters. Neg CaseV/C Clash: The affirmative has adopted my V/C pair, and now we're in a race to see which side better upholds this pair. The Aff argues that "sustainability is achieved by stabilizing a future for generations to come"... which won't happen unless present day precautions are made to the environment. Here the Aff purposes "sacrificing" some economic growth to achieve this, but as my C1 & C2 demonstrate, this economic growth is crucial to A. developing countries, and B. reducing environmental degradation. With the Aff case, we only have the hope of environmental stability, which as my C2 concludes, is unlikely without economic sustainability/growth and national resources to draw from. The Neg case is the only side that provides both economic and environmental sustainability, thus upholding the value of sustainability for the greatest number of people, both present and future. Definitions & Observations: The Aff made no direct attacks on my definitions or observations, and therefore must be accepted in today's round. The Aff offers an analysis of his burden in protecting the environment, but not through the complete elimination of resource extraction. The Neg case never assumes that the "complete abolition of resource extraction" falls under the burden of the Aff. Instead, these observations clarify the conflict between "environmental protection" and "resource extraction" that is stated within the very wording of the resolution. Given that the Aff has accepted my definitions, he also must accept the distinction between "environmental protection" and "environmental regulation", or protecting the environment from harm vs. controlling the rate of that harm. Any sort of environmental protection will have an inverse effect on resource extraction, meaning economic sustainability is impacted in favor of environmental stability. As my contentions will demonstrate once I refute the Aff's attacks, only integrated environmental regulation offers a solution that can uphold both economic and environmental sustainability. C1: The Aff is attempting to qualify his stance with "minor sacrifices", however he never provides in his case how the purposed environmental protection only involves "minor sacrifices". Second, recognizing that natural resources are good for a stable economy glosses over the original point of this contention: natural resources are necessary for a developing nation. The Aff never refutes this, but instead attempts to win on a cost/benefit analysis where the harms of resource extraction outweigh the necessary benefits that developing countries rely on. Apply my C2 here and recognize that the only way to have any hope for both economic and environmental sustainability is through the technological development/process reform that requires natural resources. Short of stopping resource extraction altogether, better technologies and processes will never be possible if a country doesn't have the economic sustainability required for future development. C2: The Aff's first attack is beyond the scope of this debate. We're both in agreement that "damage done can't be undone", even if we completely eliminate resource extraction. What we're focused on is decreasing future damage, which as the evidence present in this contention highlights, is achieved through continued economic growth. Deforestation can be managed through integrated regulation (which is one of the reasons "Green Supply Chain Management" is being developed/implemented in the first place). Finally, I argue that since the Aff is burdened with upholding environmental protection, empirical data is required to demonstrate that environmental protection will completely stop this future damage before any counter evidence can be introduced. Since the only logical way this could be achieved is the complete elimination of resource extraction, which he isn't committed to, it's unlikely that the Aff's stance can provide the type of damage reduction he's wanting me to offer data for. C3: This contention is the keystone of my case: it demonstrates that integrated regulation is preferable to pure environmental protection in order to achieve both economic and environmental sustainability. What the Aff fails to realize is that the evidence I cite in this contention states that environmental protection bodies have rarely directly worked with industrial regulation agencies in the past. This research shows that environmental regulation from within the industry is a better course of action. See my definitions and observations. "Environmental protection" vs. "environmental regulation" denotes as difference between preventing harm and regulating harm. The type of cooperation the Aff claims simply hasn't existed in the past according in the evidence. Instead, this contention shows how integrated regulation vs separate environmental protection is key to future economic/environmental sustainability. Aff CaseC1: The evidence present in my C1 clearly demonstrates the link between extractive industries and economic growth for developing countries. The Aff argues that no direct empirical data is introduced that proves reducing resource extraction would damage economic growth, but A. no evidence is provided by the Aff to argue the opposite, and B. examples such as Indonesia and Norway clearly link "significant revenue" to natural resource extraction... take away the cause, and naturally you harm the effect. For natural disasters: yes this implication is a huge threat, one that many countries face just due to location. For most countries, having cities close to fault lines, oceans, or volcanos are more economically beneficial which outweigh the risks. The same can be argued here. Finally, any attempt to reduce the possibility of disaster caused by resource extraction must occur through an integrated approach outlined in my case. C2: The Aff is attempting to make a simplistic link between resource extraction and political unrest that we see in many developing African nations. First, recall that the only evidence that the Aff provides relates to the atrocities seen in these conflicts. The Aff cites "many experts" without any direct citation, and more importantly, offers no evidence to support this simplistic link. Second, as we see in my C3, the use of resources is quite often a complex issue for policymakers and citizens alike. Simply reducing the resources that a nation relies on to stay afloat won't solve the greater political issues, and will worsen any economic issues that also add fuel to the fire. Finally, the Aff's claim that "diamond mining does not have an inevitable harm to the country..." contradicts what is stated in his contention, "But damage to the environment is not the inevitable result of diamond mining". Hence, resource extraction (represented here by diamond mining) doesn't automatically have an inevitable harm to the environment. C3: I'm not sure if we're supposed to take the Aff's word on his "richest countries" argument, but regardless, this argument ignores trade relationships with countries that do derive economic wealth from natural resources. In a globalized world, you can't escape the necessity for natural resources. More importantly, the Aff is attempting is argue against my evidence presented in my original attack of this contention. The "resource curse" is a heavily contested idea in academic circles: there's no conclusive agreement that "resource abundance" is a direct cause, and the term is often confused with "resource dependence". Finally, the research provided by Brunnschweiler & Bulte (2007) found that actual resource abundance has a positive effect on economic and institutional quality. This is important to realize because, once again, the simplistic link between resource extraction and political unrest the Aff is attempting to uphold isn't supported by current research on the topic. Voting IssuesSummarizing, we have to see that the Neg completely upholds the only V/C pair in play:1. V/C Acceptance - The value of Sustainability & the criterion of Utilitarianism have been the only V/C discussed in this round, and therefore which ever side better upholds this pair ought to win the judge's vote. 2. "Environmental Protection" vs. "Environmental Regulation" Distinction - with my definitions & observations dropped, this distinction must be upheld. Furthermore, the impact of this distinction (see my final voting issue) must be recognized. 3. Resource Necessity - Recognize that through my C1 & C2 I clearly demonstrate the necessity for natural resource extraction when it comes to economic growth/sustainability for developing countries, and to future environmental sustainability. I've established that a "better tomorrow" is possible through regulation, but not if we reduce access to these resources in the interest of "preventing harm" to the environment. 4. Environmental Sustainability + Economic Sustainability for the Greater Good - Connect all these dots and see that the Neg is the only side that upholds a just solution through the morality of Utilitarianism. The impact of the "protection vs regulation" distinction I state above is simple: only environmental regulation through integrated regulation can possibly promote complete sustainability. Environmental protection inversely affects resource extraction, and thus economic sustainability. Vote Aff, and you only get less resources and less development that can possibly combat environmental degradation, helping no one. Vote Neg, and you get economic growth/sustainability, integrated regulation, and better technologies/processes that will continue to reduce environmental degradation, thus providing complete sustainability for the majority. Thank you to my opponent for a great LD debate! Good luck in the real deal this/next month.