Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Final summary speech here we go. Before for I start addressing specific arguments I would like to clarify – there are points where, in his own summary, Neg provided new attacks and evidence against my case, while this harms both sides being able to adequately refute (i.e. my opponent cannot address the logic behind any refutations I bring up); therefore, I shall attempt to make my responses along the same line of argumentation that I have upheld throughout the debate thus far in order to best ensure fairness. Value Clash 1. Circular Reasoning - I have not been saying that we shouldn’t consider morality in the scope of today’s debate, as that is at the very nature of what LD debate is. However, a value should help frame the debate by giving us a clear goal to achieve – if the resolution already indicates moral necessity, as my opponent states it does through his definition of ought, than valuing morality doesn’t frame the debate in any new way. Essentially, my opponent negates by saying that the moral reason why shouldn’t uphold the resolution (which is what the resolution asks him to prove) is because doing so would be immoral. This is the point of the circular reasoning argument. In comparison, I say that it is moral to affirm because by doing so we are upholding safety. - To return to the clarification I made on my opponent’s statement, “an action is moral if it’s consequential”. First I explained how this statement means an action is moral if it has consequences, as that is the definition of consequential. The point was that “consequential” is not an adjective that means “adhering to philosophy of consequentialism”, though my opponent attempted to use it as such. However, I then went on to attack his attempt to turn this back to the framework of his case by returning to his criterion to assess the value clash, more on this below. 2. Broadness My opponent claims it’s okay to evaluate the criterion here. I do agree that a case should be constructed so that the criterion expands on your value; however, the value should be able to stand on its own, and morality by itself is too broad as a value. 3. Maslow’s Hierarchy The reason I referenced this wasn’t to show safety is a pre-requisite to morality, as my opponent attacks frames it. Along the reasoning of the broadness attack, there are many ways to achieve morality, but the reason why safety is good in-and-of-itself as a value is because it is a pre-requisite to other values that could be seen to also achieve morality. Criterion Again my opponent falsely accuses me of modifying his case, “What she is really doing is giving me a new criterion of utilitarianism, which is clearly not allowed.” But as I stated previously, I am not changing his case. My opponent stated his criterion was “upholding the greatest good for the greatest number”. Modifying his case would be forcing him to uphold consequentialism as this is not what he is striving to achieve. Rather I am clarifying how what my opponent’s criterion is by definition is utilitarianism. My opponent said he didn’t want to use utilitarianism because it has a negative perception in the LD world. However, let’s draw a quick analogy to see why this if flawed. Say someone said, “I uphold that it is okay to negate someone’s right to life, therefore I support rights violations.” What they’re upholding by definition is murder, which is a form of rights violations – however, referring to this act merely as the general term “rights violations” to escape the stigmatization against murder is flawed because if you want to advocate for an idea, you must accept all the burdens that come with it. In the same way, utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, like murder is a form of rights violations; however, if my opponent wants to focus specifically on if the good is maximized, he must accept that this is utilitarianism. Regarding who actually achieves this criterion, my opponent states that minimizing the risk of harm only makes space for good to appear, but doesn’t achieve it. While a strong rebuttal, what needs to be clarified is how, as I illustrate, negating maximizes the risk of harm and leads to clear results of increased violence and unsustainability in the Neg world, which drastically reduces the good. Resolution Warring countries is a non-unique point in this debate as we both analyze violence, whoever wins this clash doesn’t necessarily gain any ground. However, my initial reason for clarification was to ensure we stayed centered on the key conflict of this resolution, which we have. The point is, regardless of it a country is actively in war, there is a natural conflict between extraction and protection, and our purpose is to evaluate which ought to be prioritized. As we have been doing so, we have shown that whether developing countries are “in conflict” or not isn’t pertinent to this debate. Moving on to rebuild my own case. 1. a) extraction fuels violence. My opponent uses new evidence to claim that since natural resources can have an economic benefit, resource extraction promotes stability – he is mixing up two terms that he initially attempted to clarify. Yes, having natural resources like minerals can produce some benefits, however, this doesn’t change the fact that the process of getting them, extraction, is founded on violence, and thus encourages it. My opponent still has not actually refuted how the process of extraction fuels violence, which my evidence still supports. b) environmental stress. First, my opponent refutes this by returning to the locking up argument. As I addressed in my rebuttal, affirming this resolution doesn’t mean completely halting extraction so we are not locking up resources. However, as extraction does cause depletion of the environment, it limits the availability of other vital resources that causes environmental stress as further promotes violence. My opponent has not addressed this idea, because he simply returns to his claim that we are “unnecessarily locking up resources”. 2. sustainability. Neg states, “… having a nice environment to live in doesn’t matter”. He is attempting to justify damaging vital resources to extract helpful ones. For example, my evidence talks about how resource extraction causes pollution. Pollution damages having “clean air” which has many negative effects if it continues, which can be allowed simply to obtain money that isn’t even guaranteed to go to those in need. Sustainability of the planet clearly wins this clash. Moving on to con’s case. 1. violence. First, Neg again uses new evidence to address how resources are the cause of violence. Second, this evidence doesn’t prove that the cause of violence is the presence of resources as opposed to extraction. To explain how this new line of thinking is flawed, look to an analogy of gun control – A gun can’t do anything harmful on its own; however, when shot it can possibly kill someone. It’s not the gun that causes death, but as it makes shooting possible it increases the risk of death. In the same way, the existence of resources doesn’t cause violence, but increases the risk of it because it promotes extraction which is founded on violence. 2. benefits mankind. Here my opponent continues arguing against limiting extraction; however, as I’ve said and my opponent hasn’t attacked, this links to having a less-inhabitable world which isn’t justified under either framework. 3. good of animals. Again Neg used new evidence in his summary. Yet, this evidence only shows that in one instance something can benefit humans economically and is dangerous for animals. This doesn’t prove that the overall good of both are mutually exclusively. Logically, humans need to the earth to be inhabitable to have a place to live, and thus something that is environmentally-conscious benefits both. For the fact that all of my opponent’s arguments fall and my stand, I urge an affirmative ballot in today’s debate. Thanks to icebob for the debate!