Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

DefinitionsMy opponent went ahead and clarified the definition of resources. Note that I clarified what resources were in my definition of resource extraction. Since my opponent and I have very similar definitions, I am okay with my opponent's definition.My opponent then explains that one example will result in my not fulfilling my BoP. This is highly abusive because the resolution is talking about developing countries in general, not developing countries in every single circumstance. Thus, my opponent should at least try to talk about more than a few developing countries.ObservationsMy opponent misunderstood the goal of my observations. I am simply clarifying what exactly we will be arguing about. I stated the full resolution in R1 and these two observations are simply for the purpose of making sure this debate is over the resolution. "Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict." The first observation explains that all my arguments are where environmental conflicts with resource extraction. This is because the resolution states this debate is over instances when the two are in conflict. Logically, if the debate is over when the two are in conflict. Neither I, nor my opponent can argue for the two to be held equally. My opponent seemed to misinterpret this; this observation does not only apply to him, but to me as well. Unless my opponent can explain how these observations contradict the resolution at hand, they must be followed throughout the debate.My Arguments1. Developing countries have unstable environments due to resource extraction.Water- Firstly, my opponent never addresses my claim over water diseases resulting from excessive resource extraction. Instead, he brings up how forced irrigation benefited the people of Ethiopia. It is important to observe that irrigation is not a form of resource extraction. It does not fit my opponent's definition because irrigation itself is not a "source of supply, support or aid that can be drawn upon when needed" as my opponent's definition says. Therefore, this argument is out of the scope of the resolution and cannot be taken into account.Air- My opponent completely dropped this point. 800,000 people currently die each year from air pollution which can be caused by resource extraction.Forest Based Assets- My opponent also drops this point. Excessive deforestation in developing countries is exactly why 15 out of the essential services are currently being eroded. This is negatively impacting one seventh of the population which is currently counting on forest based assets to live.2. Ensuring environmental stability through the prioritization of environmental protection over resource extraction will benefit developing countries.My opponent also drops this argument. I showed in these examples that the prioritization of environmental protection benefits developing countries in many ways. In Albania, it enabled citizens to farm. In Nepal, "The remarkable turnaround in forest management in Nepal is directly attributable to the benefits generated for community groups, in the form of environmental goods, services, and welfare enhancements." I would suggest that my opponent skim through source #6. This source contains many examples where environmental protection has benefited developing countries.3. Millennium Development Goals (Social Development) and 4. Economic DevelopmentSo, these points were about development. My opponent counters this by using China as an example. He explains that China used resource extraction to decrease poverty in their country in 1981-2008. I would like to note that absolutely no evidence is provided as to HOW China decreased poverty. Take a look at this list of things China did to decrease poverty (1). The collective agricultural service, set up by the People's Commune System (chief source or rural poverty) was gradually eliminated. Due to land reform, it was possible for citizens to purchase individually owned plots. This increased farmer's productivity, therefore boosting the economy. The government increased agricultural investments. One of the things they did was begin to use chemical fertilizers. Note that this is not an example of environmental protection/resource extraction conflict as long as the plants are not over fertilized. The government boosted the price of produce from farmers. Developmental assistance was given to various parts of the country that needed a large amount of help. Laborers from the poorer regions were encouraged to migrate. Notice that none of these points have anything to do with resource extraction. The truth is, China was able to successfully decrease poverty in by focusing on something that will actually benefit the citizens: agriculture. The things on the list are all either benefit the environment of simply don't affect it. Look to my fifth point in the R2. I explained that due to the corruption in developing countries, the money from resource extraction doesn't go to the impoverished individuals in society. Rather, it goes to the government. Environmental protection is an action that benefits the citizens of the developing country. Thus, in situations where countries have to choose between environmental protection and resource extraction, environmental protection is the ultimate choice.Also, look to the fact that when affirming the resolution, resource extraction is not abolished. Countries can still extract resources unless the extraction process seriously harms the environment. I explained in R2 that 25% of developing country's wealth comes from the environment. This 25% of the GDP is the part that is being given back to the citizens. In the case of Guatemala, the GDP went down 25% due to environmental problems. Not surprisingly, 75% of all citizens are living below the poverty line (2) and there is a large amount of corruption. This is a prime example of the resource curse. IN this case, and in the case of many other developing countries, the protection of the environment is the way to go. Environmental protection allows for more farming, and as we saw in the example of China, this can seriously benefit the economy.5. Economic development is hindered by the prioritization of resource extraction.This is probably my most important point, yet my opponent did little to attack it. Here I proved that due to the high corruption levels, resource extraction often does little for the citizens (yet, as I have shown above), environmental protection can do a lot. Resources benefit the elite; the environment benefits the impoverished. Some environmental issues hurt everyone. Furthermore, many of the resources being extracted rapidly to make money are nonrenewable. If a country continues to extract the resources at such a rate, they will inevitably become harder to find. The country (developed or not) will certainly suffer if they run out of the resource that they rely on of income.Opponent's ArgumentsSurplus of MoneyMy opponent basically explains (using no sources) that resource extraction does not account for any extra money and that it is very expensive. I'll go ahead and address a couple statements."Green technology isn't used much because it is expensive."Let's look at the definition of green technology... "Technology whose use is intended to mitigate or reverse the effects of human activity on the environment (Oxford)." Green technology is a part of environmental protection, but it is not environmental protection itself. Environmental protection can come in ways that do not involve expensive technology. I would agree that environmental protection does cost money, but its benefits are undeniable."...when you start weighing the cost on a macro scale, you're presented with millions of problems."Look to the fact that my opponent has not cited one example where resource extraction has hindered a developing country from social/economic development. Also, my opponent has provided no number for this "large cost" of environmental protection. I have shown through my evidence that the right way to develop is environmental protection because resource extraction simply does nothing for the impoverished. As I said above, look at source #6 that I cited in R2 for a multitude of success stories."If nations become profitable, then we can consider fancy new solar panels, or draining wharves."These things are not exactly the type of environmental protection that we would most likely see being prioritized in developing countries.ConclusionHere, my opponent simply asks how developing countries are supposed to obtain money for environmental protection. I cannot give one generic answer because developing countries have different environmental issues, different resources, and different incomes. It is important to remember that developing countries have an environmental protection/resource extraction conflict, they must be getting some money from resource extraction. The idea is that this money, rather than going to the elite of society should be used for protecting the environment. As I showed throughout my case, this gives the country both economic and social development in the right way. As I said earlier, my opponent give no example of a developing country that has been negatively impacted through environmental protection. This is because environmental protection has numerous benefits that far outweigh its cost.(1) http://borgenproject.org...(2) http://web.worldbank.org...