Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I. Observation/ResolutionsThis argument relies heavily on my opponents understanding that this debate is only over instances in where resource extraction is directly conflicting with environmental protection. This is not the resolution, which explicitly states that "Developing Countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction". This is outrageous, and a double fallacy. Has the opponent considered that there are other ways to protect the environment over than extracting resources? Which leaves this contention broken. If this were to be true, then the resolution would be advocating that all forms of environmental protection not correlating with resource extraction should also be prioritized. My opponent was not firmly clear on this, or said anything about it at all. None the less, my points still stand.This debate also involves instances where environmental protection don't correlate with resource extraction, and vice versa. If the resolution followed this observation, it would say "In times where environmental protection and resource extraction come in conflict, resource extraction should come first.II. OP's understanding of direct conflictI am trying very hard to make my opponent understand, that all forms of resource extraction harm the environment. She seems to keep ignoring this, and engaging in guerrilla straw man in other places about this. Is there one form of resource extraction that doesn't harm the environment? Irrigation hurts the ground and roots, farming tires soil (farms eventually produce less over time), with modern day farming killing 10000's of bugs per farm that are integral in the ecosystem. Have people seen certain fungicides these days? Farming is one of the biggest causes of pollution. My opponent cannot continue to deny that there are two categories of resource extraction. Every resource hurts the environment, so even if my opponent were correct on her direct conflict rule, then she would be conceding several points she accused earlier. Michigan is the resource drain, and my opponent will have trouble naming even one collected resource that doesn't harm the environment. I really want to know if she can, and since she hasn't, all of the points made on this subject should be disregarded. Even innocent things like fishing cause water pollution and hurt the ecosystem (By Darwin's theory, animals live in a connected food chain).III. C1: Developing nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technologyMy opponents one rebuttal is that the people will never see this money, as the elite hold it. This is unrelated and off topic. Her straw man covered up the fact that she conceded that the surplus wealth should be used on green technology. What she didn't answer, is how green technology can be bought without surplus wealth? She responded to the contention, sure, but she dropped the point. Green technology is more expensive than base technology, so you need to make money before it can be bought. This is simple economics.Since this point is dropped, the bop is not filled, and my opponent should lose the debate from this alone. I do not write contentions just to see them straw manned and dropped. I have better things to do than engage in a debate with such silly argumentation. Which is why I recommend the audience to seriously consider the dropped point here when casting their votes.IV. CorruptionI have been ignoring this argument due to a lack of gravity and weight, but since my opponent is insisting on bringing it up time after time, I will be forced to refute this. The point here is weak, and unrelated to the debate. Even if it held any weight at all, there is evidence more surplus is created than siphoned into slush accounts. Take Kenya for example They have the richest oil in the world, and the fourth largest reserves in the planet. It is also the most corrupt resource rich nation. http://www.transparency.org...Even though Kenya is the most corrupt nation with resource rich land, only 41% of value (forex) is being funneled through corrupt networks, which means 59% is still being created as surplus. My opponents case is debunk, by me proving worst case scenarios still work. Also, this argument has nothing to do with the resolution. Qatar and South Korea are examples of nations who've controlled corruption while still having resources. Corruption is a government policy issue that doesn't relate very well to the debate, and is also to big a problem to generalize.V. C2: Concession (yay) on process and understanding of surplus There are two things which pretty much seal this debate. One, is that the opposition outright conceded that you need to make money before you can protect the environment. This greatly damages her case. Then she moves on to claim that nations already have surplus. THIS IS FALSE!!!!. Developing nations almost never have surplus wealth. That is why they have budgets, and the government is trying to slowly grow them so they can just break even on new buys. The little money in stock they have, would be thrown into environmental protection, instead of the new harbor the citizens of Lwore have been waiting 8 years to see built. There are a couple common factors among third world nations....1. Extreme Poverty2. High Unemployment3. Corruption/InfightingThe last of their concerns being environmental protection. The citizens don't need new solar panels. They want more jobs, social programs, and a lot more security. Ask a starving child what he wants most, and he'll say food, not a windmill. Its not developing nations that hurt the environment the most. It's industrialized ones. By having nations spend all their spare money on technology they can't afford, you are holding back their standard of living and development as a whole. These nations need to save every cents they have just to create the wealth they need to afford luxuries such as environmental protection.VI. Another Concession (Yay) and restatements on where wealth is going I would like to state once again, my opponent has conceded this contention. Before bringing up another concern. She says, once again, in a repetitive and rhetorical manner, that the people never see the wealth anyways. I would ask her, who is working the mines? Who's making these people rich? Even in societies where the money flows to the top, there is still a great deal of wealth going to the bottom. Not enough I grant you, but enough to justify this contention. Slowly overtime, nations standards of living are increasing, and more people are being lifted from poverty. So my opponent is wrong. Not all money hits the top. Maybe once we have 23% less people living under 1.25$ a day, then we can talk, but my contention is not only true, but as you can see, it has already been tested. We can banter about how the elites take all are money as much as we want, but only a foolish economist would deny that we're seeing at least some of it being spread around. Which is where the BOP fails.VII. Scarcity in resourcesFor the record, I can't concede an argument you didn't make. She straw manned her own argument. Also, this rebuttal, is actually just her restating the very argument I just refuted. Or in layman's terms, dropped my points again. I want a definite answer. If resources eventually run out, then will we make more money extracting them in lump sums, or slowly over time. In to which I argued that having money in circulation can create wealth without commodities, to which I got no response. Anyone macro economics would tell you the same things. Having 2 billion dollars now, could create 10 billion later. Without commodities even being a factor.VIII. Conclusion My opponent has not upheld her BOP. She put some strong points forward, but there were to many conceded contentions, dropped premises, logical fallacies , straw mans, among other things which make this a definite one sided win. The burden of proof is a serious thing, and should be considered to its fullest extent. My opponent conceded all three of my contentions, with her only defense being weak "buts...." which relied on X factors not involved in the debate.A conceded point is a failed BOP. Much less having three concessions. Vote Con! Sourceshttp://bauscharddebate.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...