India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Con's Being Anthropocentric:This is the shortest part: He says he's not being anthropocentric, then says his "value" as con is "Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life.", which is the de facto definition of antropocentrism. So he either contradicts himself super badly, or he links into the harms of my case. Deep Ecology is Great:Con essentially restates the same points as he did last round, with the exception of making a really skewed, just not very good analogy that relies on utilitarian logic to even begin to kind of make sense, which is something I pointed out to be the cause of a lot of our problems figuring out the situation to begin with (see Katz and Oechsli 1). He's still stuck in this narrowminded way of thinking that pits the two against them, which prevents us from expanding our mindset and considering all the options to solve this problem without relying on conventional modes of thought.Con leads to the harms of the AC:All he's really doing is that by saying he doesn't endorse genocide that his arguments won't lead to it. It doesn't matter if you don't want it, what I'm arguing is that your arguments not only justify it, but will also lead to it in the future, whether you want it to or not. Just plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "I won't hurt people, I won't hurt people" doesn't make your arguments any better. You actually have to, y'know, respond to my arguments to be disproving them rather than just saying "I won't do it" when I'm arguing all the reasons why your arguments will.Moreover, he never responds to the D'amato and Chopra evidence I cited last round that shows the exact warrants as to where anthropocentrism leads to things like discrimination and genocide. My case actually affirms the resolution:He literally just repeats himself almost copy-paste what he said from the last round, so I'll repeat as well: I have to argue why we should value environmental protection over economic development. If I'm arguing that by not valuing environmental protection we're being anthropocentric, which leads to subjugation, genocide, and eventual extinction, it's certainly not in the best interest of India to negate at that point. He's not responding to any of this. My Case has warrants, actually:He repeats the same argument from authority without logical connection, then doesn't respond to the part where I cite all the warrants coming from my cards and then also provide additional historical context that proves the analytical warrants that my cards state have and will happen. So I don't really know what to do here.He also says that we've made progress being anthropocentric, which is entirely false. He has no evidence to prove that our advancement as a species is due to being anthropocentric. This is a blatant unwarranted assertion on his part. There's absolutely no warrant for why advancing requires exploiting others, rather than working in tandem with them so that both can improve rather than just one. There's no reason to opt for a parasitic relationship when a symbiotic relationship is possible. And just because a society is in a worse spot than we are, that doesn't justify us exploiting them. Con's Case doesn't really prove anything:He says that his arguments aren't about what "might" happen, but rather what "will" happen, but this is blatantly untrue. Look back at the actual case he wrote. There's so many "India has the potential to x" or "India would have the chance to y" in his case that there's no actual certainty to anything. It's all "might be's" with no actual warrant for why those outcomes "will" happen. I never asked him to provide a specific plan-text, all I asked him was to provide warrants for his arguments...Moreover, I actually did address his contentions, in the very top part of my rebuttal last round...especially the Katz and Oechsli 2 card which explains how negating doesn't actually improve anything for Third World counties (of which India is one). And he didn't respond to it...awkward...He also never responded to the Irvine or CPE I cited last round that shows his advocacy of essentially "sustainable growth" doesn't actually work and just makes the situation worse... I'm gonna direct quote this next part because I don't have a good way to tagline this:"This is merely a strawman. ... then that is his problem, not mine."1. That's not even what a strawman is.2. But even if it was, I'm not strawmanning you. Your arguments are literally saying "x could happen if we y" but you're not showing how x WILL lead to y, despite my repeated calls for you to show this. "Again, the rules stated in round 1 ... economic development should have 100% focus."1. Again, there's no rule in round one that lets you co-opt any kind of offensive argument I could make.2. You still haven't even attempted to respond to my arguments as for why your rules suck.3. You're still not understanding the basis of my argument, even though I've repeatedly spent time trying to clarify it to you. So once more: You're saying that the rules and the resolution allow you to advocate for defending doing both environmental protection and economic development. I'm saying that rule sucks and harms debate by harming both fairness and educational values in the debate, and have explained why both of those values are important to not harm. Therefore, the rule should be dropped and you should have to defend economic development over environmental protection."My opponent wishes to trap me into an impossible position. ... perfectly valid position for the Con to take."1. It's clearly a possible position, because that's what your case argues, unless you're saying all the warrants in your cards are crap and aren't actually true.2. I think this is where you're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that it isn't a valid position to take. I'm saying that it's an abusive position to take and that taking this position harms debate as a practice, thus you shouldn't be allowed to take it. "Saying that you are not committing slippery slope ... lack of connection between your points and impacts."No you haven't. All you've said so far is that you're not being anthropocentric (then setting the overarching advocacy of your case as the de facto definition of what anthropocentrism is), and that you don't want to commit genocide (without responding to the litany of cards and warrants as to why your arguments are going to). All you've literally done is said I'm not doing it, then ignored the plethora of times that I did and pretended like they never existed. -------In short, because this is the last round we can make rebuttals in without making new arguments in the final round, I want to touch on all the arguments my opponent has dropped, just so he can't be cheap and try to respond to them in the final round. Don't let him make new responses to these in the next round beacause he's had his chances to respond to them and didn't, which is a clear drop.To start with, he never places a response on the reasons why his advocacy of doing both EP and ED harms debate and, thus, shouldn't be a position he should be allowed to take. This is the observation from my case. He never responds to the alternative I provide, saying that deep ecology solves for the problems with anthropocentrism. That means that if you buy he's being anthropocentric, then you instantly affirm because I'm fixing all the problems that come apriori to his economic impacts. He never responds to Katz and Oechsli 1, which argues why my impacts function apriori to his impacts. He never responds to Katz and Oechsli 2, which explains why even if we were to negate, we wouldn't be helping third world countries (i.e. India) at all, but we'd actually still be hurting them. This means that even if you don't buy my case, you still affirm because going off of his arguments don't actually help India, but actually hurts them, making his case not in the best interests of the people of India. He never responds to the Irvine or the CPE cards, which explain how his case not only proves he's being anthropocentric harder, but shows how it actually only makes the situation worse as a whole. This means that no matter what you're affirming today because even if you buy his impacts, he's commiting worse harms to get those impacts, which means I'm outweighing. And he never responds to D'amato and Chopra which explains exactly how arguing what Con is arguing justifies and leads to things like subjugation and genocide. And this is crucial because since he never responds to this, I'm winning on my case as well show you how he's causing all the harms of the AC, and if I'm doing that I win before you even look to his side of the debate.And, don't let him just say I'm commiting the argument form authority because I'm actually not. It may look like I'm just saying "x says this so it's true", but that ignores the actual lines of logic and reasoning the cards cite, which is what I'm advocating for. He's not actually responding to any of the warrants that my arguments cite and just trying to get out of having to respond to them by saying "Argument from Authority". Don't let him get away with it and punish him for trying to do it because he's dropped all the warrants in my arguments because of it.To summarize:He's being anthropocentric, which leads to things like subjugation of minorities, genocide and eventual extinction, which not only is not in the best interest of India, but it outweighs his impacts. He never responds to the evidence that explains how he is, so I'm winning there and you can vote aff there. But even if you don't buy my case, he never responds to any of the arguments I place against his case that show how his case not only won't work, but actually makes things worse, which means you affirm there as well.