"In developing countries, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction wh

For that I am sorry. My first contention states that man must use resource extraction to help him gain access to the top of the system. Douglas Richards: "Nietzsche had glorified the concept of a superman. Not the Clark Kent variety, but a man whose sense of good and evil was ________________________________________________________________________ 3 &4Nietzsche"s Metaethical Stance, Nadeem J. Z. Hussain solely based on what would help him succeed or fail. Good was anything that would help him achieve his potential. Evil was anything that would hamper him. [Nietzsche wrote:] What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. "5 In extracting resources, mankind is thereby doing good. Resources provide him with undeniable economical benefits, which lead to scientific discovery and breakthroughs within the species. It is key that developing countries do not hold the species back, and support their own economies to result in their own breakthroughs. If other species and wildlife (be them plants or animals) hinder man"s success then they are on the bad side of the spectrum, and it is reasonable to conduct actions that result in the loss of these competitors. My second contention states that the coming and going of mankind is beneficial. Nietzsche 4: "Man is a rope stretched between beast and Overman -- a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what is lovable in man is that he is an overture and a going-under. "6 Being that man is "an overture", he will be followed by something greater-something more pure. Thus, the coming and going of man will not cause destruction to systematic life nor the natural state of nature. Thus, I negate. _______________________________________________________________________ 5 Wired, Douglas Richards, author degree in business administration from UChicago 6 Nietzsche"s Metaethical Stance, Nadeem J. Z. Hussain Let's hit the AC: First, my opponent's entire case is based on the idea that we must not rid the Earth of species; we need those species for competition. However, my opponent misses the point of this argument. First, morality is a misconception generated by man, and without it we are able to pursue our full potential as humans. Second, cross-supply contention one. Richards clearly explains that anything that hampers mans success is bad. Thus, we have the right to conduct actions that result in the loss of these competitors. Let me put it in perspective. Let's say that if I win this debate against my opponent I will receive access to power and thus power and success as a result of that power. By human nature (especially with morality out of the picture) it makes complete sense to pursue this power; further, it is my obligation as a competitor to do so. It is inherent that competitors will not (and should not) feel sympathy towards one another if they truly want to attain full success. Thus, TURN 1: In saving competitors my opponent is going against systematic life; therefore, my opponent's AC does not function under my framework. Furthermore, their value of justice is clearly linked to my arguments against morality. Justice is heavily correlated with morality, so drop their value and look to mine. Also, in providing no standard my opponent concedes to mine. For their last speech they must tie into my framework for these reasons. If they do not, drop the debater. My opponent also claims that my case doesn't solve for problems as the AC does, yet I clearly do. In going back to the basic natural function of nature, we are inherently doing good as nature intended. In implying that the man-made mechanisms of justice and morality are good we are making assumptions that could lead to a serious blow to mankind. Further, when my opponent attempts to claim that they "don't bite into the harms of the NC because I'm not advocating for a system of morality", do not allow the ballot to be altered. The link between justice and morality is clear-cut, as stated previously. Though they are related, there is a slight difference between morality and justice. Justice balances the rights of each individual. Morality dictates how individuals ought to conduct themselves. Morality may dictate you should give to the poor. Justice does not, because what is yours is not anyone else"s until freely given. My opponent is liable to pose this argument, however it makes no difference in the outcome of the round. Nietzsche blocks all man-made mechanisms that dictate the action of man. These systems are assertions made by man as an attempt to place him in a place of human-supremacy. However, when stripped down to the basics (i. e. The Lord of The Flies), morality and justice take no effect on his actions of competition and survival of the fittest. ON MY CASE: Extend my first contention. This essentially blocks my opponents case: drop Rollin, Nussbaum, Daws 2, and the Center for Biological Diversity argument. The reason for the blocking and uprooting of my opponent's case is due to the fact that eliminating competitors is inherently good. It weeds out weaker competitors unworthy of the title hierarchy king. Through evolution and survival of the fittest, mankind as well as all other species will be forced into a state of evolutionary change through this systematic life. Extend my second contention. This sheds light as to why it does not matter that species die off. If humans die as a result it is okay, for we will be replaced by something greater. Did dinosaurs have the internet? With millions-if not billions-of users participating in the spread of knowledge and education? The answer is no. And wouldn't you know it, they were followed by a group who does have these things. Through inductive reasoning in collaboration with Darwinian Evolution it is simple to deduct that man will be replaced by something greater, which is beneficial. WHY YOU VOTE NEG: 1) Through the content of my case it is clear that the entire AC is blocked. 2) My opponent is forced to use my framework due to their conceding of my standard as well as my four disprovals of their value. 3) I outweigh on timeframe. I do what is best for all species as a whole, avoiding human-supremacy and putting all animals on an equal playing field. Thus, I allow the most righteous species to be on top, man or not. 4) I outweigh on scope. In helping all species and nature itself I help all beings, while my opponent simply helps animals, while never abandoning human-supremacy as I do and therefore never fully freeing animals. Good round (sorry about the contention mishap). *handshake*