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

Thanks for this debate so far! Its been really fun! I will start off by defending my case and then returning to the pro.My opponent starts off on my value of happiness. He simply states that he believes happiness to be the most shallow value that can be held, and that it is simply a fleeting emotion. However my opponent fails to address my actual argument and the merits behind it, instead he argues the word itself. I use Aristotle's view on happiness, which is that we as human beings, act in a way that will bring us happiness. So however shallow my opponent believes this value, one of the more intelligent minds in the history of our planet believed it to be the ends that all human beings are searching for. He then states that happiness is subsidiary to life, however i will address this point when i look to the pro case.* Finally, my opponent says negation will not achieve or maximize happiness, however this is easily refuted. I would be extremely angry if i wasnt able to use my computer because of a blackout caused by a lack of energy. While happiness may be contingent upon other things if we were in a state of nature, because we have advanced into an age where energy is a necessity to everyday activities such as driving and making my coffee in the morning, the lack of energy will result in a lack of happiness.He then addresses my criterion of energy. He states that it is not weighing mechanism, which is not true. Yes it is a strange criterion, however the fact that we are debating an energy resolution makes it a weighing factor. Im using energy on a whole as a way to power everything that we use, not suggesting that somebody gets happy by playing with an outlet.:) On to my contention, my opponent says that that first, we have had the option to switch to a different type of energy for a while now. This doesn't refute anything however, it simply moves from my one example of oil to a different example of energy. The argument i make here is that everything we do is run from energy, so no it does not have to be oil, but you still need energy. Second, where he says i have no impact, this is false. The impact would be that almost every single thing we do consumes energy of some kind that must be produced. Thats a pretty large impact considering the backlash that would occur with a loss of energy in our fragile nation we live in today.I would like to address something here that my opponent drops in his arguments, therefore conceding to it. I make the observation of the word ought, and how my opponent must prove that a society has a moral obligation to prioritize environmental concerns. Because my opponent has conceded to follow this, dont allow him to come at the end of the third round to argue framework. He must prove the moral obligation, which he has not done to this point. Now on to the Pro case.On his value of life, his response was dinosaurs. I understand the argument he makes however he is misunderstanding the argument that i make. If the resolution were something along the lines of, "to sustain a just society, we ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy", then the value of life makes sense. However, because the resolution gives us the information that we already have a just society, we need not value life. The resolution will always have life included in it. There is no flip-side, that if we negate we lose life or anything. Pro will always have life in the debate, con will always have life. Rather than argue something that is implicit in the resolution, we need to go where there is question, hence my value of happiness.On his criterion of The Environmental Wisdom World View, first off, thanks for the clarification of the value-criterion connection! Now, my opponent argues that we shouldn't act in a way to selfishly benefit ourselves if it hurts nature. However, we must see that a society on its own does just this. The fact that people gather in close proximity to each other to enjoy the benefits of a social contract in itself harms nature by forcing animal habitats to change and possibly harming an ecosystem. The only way that we can actually achieve what my opponent is advocating is to abolish the formations of society in order for the masses to not harm nature. Second, the fact that humans must consume nature in order to survive also defeats his criterion. If we didn't harm nature, not only would we be in a state of ungoverned nature, but we would all eventually die without food or water for consumption, strictly going against his value of life. On to his contention one, Attack one. First he states that there are other cures to cancer that cannot be marketed as drugs in the United States. However this fact does not change my attack. Regardless of what COULD be used, im telling you what IS being used. Prefer this because im showing you the benefits that are occurring in the present. Second, he states that the vast majority of people who get cancer die from it anyways, however this doesnt justify letting the 2% that survive die as well. That two percent, as small as it is comparatively to the whole, is far more than the small number who died at chernobyl. The con better achieves the pros value of life on this contention, as well as my own. On my attack two, he states that there are increased levels of thyroid cancer, however he never impacts this. A simple rise of one person getting thyroid cancer is considered an increase, and thyroid cancer has a 97% successful cure rate. This argument has no impact. On the attack three, he states that i never solve for the harms. This is true, i cannot say that this example was in any way good, however my argument is that one bad egg doesn't ruin the rest of the dozen. When we compare this failure to the mass good that energy has brought the world, it is very heavily outweighed. I agree that no amount of technology will ever equate human life, however, no amount of environmental conservation will either. On to the contention two, he attempts to make up for his mistake by saying that the chemicals were used in energy production. However this is not believable. First, he doesnt even give the name of the company. Second, he doesnt tell you for what these chemicals were used for. The second part of his argument is that energy was produced there. However this does not fit in the resolution. He states himself that this section of land was toxic. This case was in no way an example of the people valuing energy over an environmental concern. First off, they didnt know that the land was a toxic dump, and second, even if they did produce energy, which you dont prove, they wernt harming the environment there any more than it already was. This argument simply is not topical, and your attempts to salvage it may be making you worse off. Lastly on the contention three, this is extremely similar to the contention one. He gives an argument that paints a loss of life and property. However, once again i must tell you to look at the scale of things. There is a large majority of success stories to outweigh this A-typical case. Furthermore, once again he states that their are other sources of energy, however we need to understand that even the production of alternate forms of energy still fits under the con side of the resolution. He doesnt actually defend any of his arguments with the pro side, rather bringing up other examples that still uphold the con.