Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

In this speech, I will defend my own case, then go on to address my opponent"s. I agree with my opponent"s definition of prioritize, but reserve the right to clarify later. I would like to clarify the word ought, which Encarta1 defines as "to be morally right" meaning "ought" is the evaluative term in the resolution, therefore meaning in the round debaters are to determine which policy, environmentalism or resource extraction, is moral. Therefore, morality is an applicable value to today"s debate, and is the paramount value as well, as both sides, aff and neg, are attempting to achieve morality by debating a resolution including the word "ought". I will start with the value clash. My opponent says that my value of morality is a circular argument, as deciding which actions are moral to achieve morality is, as my opponent states, circular reasoning. However, my opponent fails to acknowledge my value structure and how it pertains to "circular reasoning". I am upholding a value of morality, previously defined, as it is the value indicated by the word "ought". I then state that consequentialism upholds morality, which means that consequentialism is moral. Contrary to my opponent"s statement, I say an action is moral if it is consequential, not if it is moral. Therefore the circular reasoning argument cannot apply. My opponent attempts to place safety above morality, as my opponent states that it achieves the moral actions. However, if a value is supposed to determine what is moral, as my opponent states, then safety in fact achieves morality. My opponent also states that safety achieves other values, and quotes Abraham Maslow. If safety were to be placed above morality, it could not achieve morality, and therefore, as my opponent states, could not win the value clash. My opponent also states that there are many conflicting ways to achieve morality, and that I have not specified which, therefore I cannot uphold my value as it is too broad. However, my opponent fails to recognize my criterion in reference to morality, as my value structure states. I have given a way to achieve morality, therefore, my opponent"s statement arguing that it is too broad is invalid. Addressing my opponent"s attack of my value criterion: My opponent seeks to defame my criterion by calling it a different name, utilitarianism. She then attempts to give a different definition than the one I previously stated. My opponent has taken liberties that she does not have the right to, such as modifying my constructive to fit her needs. Disregarding that, she states that negating leads better to consequentialism, which therefore achieves morality. As refuting that argument is better suited to be addressed in the contentions, I will discuss this later. My opponent attempts to interpret the resolution in a way that is harmful to the round. I do understand that the one she seeks to argue is the official NFL resolution, however, as is my right as the instigator, I have chosen the resolution, and as my opponent has chosen to be the contender, she has accepted the resolution given and must debate with that for the whole round. My opponent does not hold the right to "clarify", and therefore change the resolution. The resolution stated by the Instigator says that when developing countries are in conflict, they ought to prioritize environment protection over resource extraction. My opponent attacks my first contention by stating that "extraction is what fuels violence (the key point of my first point, subpoint a), yet then states that prioritizing extraction would mean, "each warring side would get what they need, and therefore have no need to fight". " What my opponent fails to acknowledge is that when a country is in conflict, the warring sides will not respect environmental protection, and extract resources in a way more damaging to the environment. Resource extraction, as my opponent states, is not what has fueled the conflict, but is what will satisfy the conflict. She has twisted my constructive to say that resource extraction starts conflict, however, I stated natural resources start conflict. With that point made, my opponent cannot uphold the rest of her argument against that contention, therefore, it still stands. My opponent then makes a statement about resource extraction, and cites her second contention. I interpret this as an argument against my second contention, even though it is not clearly listed. In order for me to refute this, I must refute her first contention, therefore, a defense about this will come later when her first contention has been refuted. My opponent addresses a statement in my third contention, which I will take as an argument against it, as I see no other. My opponent states that upholding the good of men is not prioritizing the good of plants and animals above men. However, as stated in my second contention, resource extraction is for the good of man, and if we are to prioritize environmental protection, we would be placing the good of animals and plants over the good of men. My opponent states that the two are not mutually exclusive, however, as stated, they are, therefore, her argument is invalid, and my third contention still stands. As the final statement for my defense, my opponent refutes my statement about evidence. However, I merely stated that I will not accept the burden of evidence. I was not saying all evidence is invalid, as my opponent seems to think I said. I am fine with my opponent facilitating evidence in the round, however, it should not be a key voting issue, as evidence is not necessary in an LD round, even if it is allowed to be facilitated. Going on to address my opponent"s case: My opponent uses a value of safety, and states more in the value clash. I have already addressed the value clash and how I have won it, so no further argumentation is needed. My opponent attempts to uphold her value by using the criterion "minimizing the risk of harm". I agree that could reach safety, however, my opponent"s value structure is not achieving an affirmative case, as for my next reason: In the developing countries of today, humans are not safe. Resource extraction would give them the resources they need to increase their standard of living, however, environmental protection keeps them at their standard of living as they do not obtain any resources to come out of poverty. Furthermore, my opponent states in her case that environmental protection upholds sustainability, so we may, as she states, extract resources later. The results behind those words, even if she does not mean them, are that we keep the poor in poverty until we so see fit to drop our sustainability and extract resources. Procrastination is taking place here, as sustainability in this regard is simply saving the environment so we may extract resources later. I will restate this as an attack on her second contention later. My opponent"s first contention is negating would promote violence. She then states in A. that resource extraction fuels violence. However, as stated in my first contention, natural resources fuel violence, and that extracting those resources takes away the cause of the violence, therefore stilling it. She fails to acknowledge that "natural resources" and "resource extraction" are two different things in her first contention. Natural resources fuel violence, not resource extraction, therefore, her first subpoint is invalid, as it relies upon an assumption refuted by the previous statement. Her second subpoint is "environmental protection lowers violence by decreasing environmental stress". However, by protecting the environment, we are locking away resources that men of greed will attempt to extract by violence, thereby promoting violence. Therefore, her second subpoint is invalid. My opponent"s second contention is negating harms sustainability, but I have already addressed how this is false in my argument about how her value structure cannot affirm the resolution. Going over this again, environmental protection locks up resources saying that it is justified doing so by sustainability. However, if, as my opponent states, we are saving the environment to extract from it later, why not extract from it now, and ease the suffering of the poor? If we are to lift the standard of living in developing countries, we must extract now, and avoid prolonged and unneeded suffering. It is for these reasons that I continue to negate today"s resolution and urge a neg ballot. I thank you for your time. Sources 1 - Encarta Dictionary