India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Deep Ecology, Anthropocentrism, and Con's CaseMy opponents case now rests entirely on the concept that Anthropocentrism is a valid point on which to affirm the resolution. Therefore, if the Con sufficiently proves that "Deep ecology" is not in the best interest of the people of india, and that the value set forth by Con is in the best itnerest of the people of India, then Con has won this debate, and you must vote con. Con Values =/= AnthropocentrismFirst, I would like to clarify that the Con is NOT arguing in favor of "anthropocentrism" as the Pro as defined it. Pro seeks to contend that I assert that Non-human species have no intrinsic value. This is not true. The Con value has been established as such "Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life. "This does not imply that non-sapient species lack intrinsic value, it just means that sapient species are of a higher intrinsic value. Con's Values are superior than "Deep Ecology"Deep ecology simply is not the value that is in the best interest of the people of india. As was stated in the round 1 rules that the Pro accepted, "Best Interest: the action that is in the best interest will yield the highest net benefits""Deep Ecology" will not yield the highest net benefits. Con's value gives the People of India higher intrinsic value than their environment, and therefore gives them a net benefit. Deep ecology argues that human life is of equal value to all other forms of life, but this is simply not a practical philosophy to hold. Humans must consume either plants or animals in order to survive, and justifying this action implicitly gives humans a higher intrinsic value. Here are two scenarios, under the two proposed value systems. Example 1: "Deep Ecology"A flock of 10 chickens and a young Indian boy are trapped under some rocks. A passerby realizes that he can either A) save the boy, or B) save the entire flock of 10 chickens. Under the proposed value each of the chickens has equal intrinsic value as the boy, and therefore the passerby saves the chickens. Was this outcome of the greatest interest to the indian people? No. The chickens were the only things that benefitted, and they are not defined as "the people of India. "Example 2: Con's valuesTake the same scenario, but this time, the man saves the young boy. This action WAS in the best interest of the people of india present in the situation, because the indian boy survived. We can see, that because "Deep Ecology" lowers the intrinsic value of the Indian people relative to the rest of life on Earth, any philosophy of "Deep Ecology" CANNOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. Therefore, on this point alone, you should have more than enough reason to cast a vote for the negative. The negative outcomes of Anthropocentrism, are not present in the Con ValuesAs I have stated, the value I have asserted is very different from "Anthropocentrism. " The negative outcomes that could befall the people of India that my opponent has loosely stated will occur would NOT occur under the Con values. Genocide of any sapient race, or the oppression of any sapient race goes against the con value. SummaryPros case is non-compatible with the resolution, and is in no way a legitimate basis for affirmation of the resolution. Pros Case The vast majority of Pro's case is now totally dismantled. To further illustrate my point though, I will again remind the readers and voters of two key points to keep in mind regarding Pros Case1. Pros Case is an Argument from authority, without logical connectionPro has cited a handful of writers and philosphers that claim that many negative outcomes will result from "anthropocentrism" (I have shown the difference between this and my value), and expects readers to accept these claims as truth. The fact is, that there is no logical connection elucidated by my opponent to show that these outcomes will truly result from "anthropocentrism" or similar doctrines. Furthermore, historically speaking, the human race has been pursuing practices of "anthropocentrism" for a very long time, and although there have been a select few negative outcomes, the human race as a whole has only seen (on average) an improvement in the standard of living. Humanity must exploit other forms of life in order to improve the standard of living. There is simply no way to progress without the exploitation of other life forms. If we look at historical examples of civilizations that practiced doctrines akin to "deep ecology" we can see that these societies were typically barbaric, and lived in very poor standards of living without much scientific progression ( in the case of the native North Americans). Cons CaseMy case has provided many net benefits for the people of India. My argument isn't that certain outcomes "might" happen, it is that these outcomes "will" happen. My opponent asks me to clearly outline a specific plan as to how indias economy will be developed, but that is not a requirement for this debate. My opponent attempts to wave away many of my contentions without giving them much addressing. I would like to forward these points across the flow. Addressing the argument summary"1. Nothing in my opponents case shows why we should actually prioritize economic development. He has all these nice little arguments that say that x could happen, or India looks really promising to have y happen, but never explains how priotizing economic development will actually reach that. "This is merely a strawman. My argument shows the logical connection between development and benefits. I have clearly stated this connection. If my opponent failed to read that part of my argument, then that is his problem, not mine. "2. Force my opponent to just advocate for economic growth, as allowing him to take both sides is entirely unfair and abusive. "Again, the rules stated in round 1 were precise and clear. My opponent should have realized that the resolution only meant to discuss whether or not environmental protection should be prioritized, not whether or not economic development should have 100% focus. My opponent wishes to trap me into an impossible position. The resolution is clear. Pro must argue that E. P. must be given priority over E. D. while con must only argue against this. Therefore, equating E. P. and E. D. is a perfectly valid position for the Con to take. "3. I'm not commiting the slippery slope fallacy, as the warrants in my cards are clear and, more importantly, not responded to, and I'm also showing historical precedence to show how the logic behind my case isn't the slippery slope fallacy. "Saying that you are not committing slippery slope doesn't mean that you aren't. I have addressed the lack of connection between your points and impacts. SummaryPro argues for deep ecology, and Con proves that it is simply not compatible with the resolution at hand. Con argues for economic development under the Con Value set forth, and clearly illustrates how the people of India will benefit.