India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Group all of his arguments together: First: AC impacts will always come first. These anthropocentric arguments limit the scope of our ethical discussion. We need to expand our sights and consider the entirety of the problem if we’re to find any solution at all. Katz and Oechsli[8]: “Our complaint is not merely with the difficulties of performing utility calculations. The deeper issue is the anthropocentric frameworklimits ethical discussions. The primary concern for human interests … creates an irreconcilable conflict between two goods that are…advocated by anthropocentric policies … the ecosystem which preserves … and the economic use of the land … We are faced with …a conflict between a long-term support … and short-term usable goods. This conflict cannot be resolved unless we expand the framework of discussion beyond the limits of anthropocentric … reasoning”Second: TURN: Negating actually doesn’t help developing countries that much, if at all. It just spreads the gains out to the rest of the world and leaves the third world with the tab to pay. Katz and Oechsli 2:“Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preserving … the … rain forest, are spread out … across the entire human race, while the costs … are borne … by … local human populations. Development of the rain forest … provides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding that … Third World countries limit development … violates basic … notions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for the … world’s … use of natural resources.”Third: He has absolutely zero solvency to any of his claims. All of his claims talk about how economic development could lead to x or could possibly lead to y, but he's not providing any kind of warrant or analysis about how negating the resolution WILL do what he's saying it will. Until he provides some king of warrant for why economic development actually reaches the impacts he says they will, he has no actual offense in this debate. Fourth: Almost none of his contentions even have warrants to them, either. The only one that does have a warrant to it is his first argument, and that's only saying that India is in a place where it could grow, which doesn't mean economic development at all. He hasn't provided any kind of analysis or empirical evidence that says what he's arguing is true at all, and until he does there's no reason to give his arguments any kind of weight. But, off of his A point:He's not doing enough work to show that negating actually will lead to this growth. All his argument is saying is that India is in a position where it has the potential to grow in GDP, but doesn't say how focusing on economic development will actually cause that growth. Then, group his E and F points, which are basically advocating for sustainable development:First: “Sustainable development” is an anthropocentric attempt to evade natural limits on growth – this contributes to a global ecological meltdown. Irvine[9]:“The realities of life on a finite planet suggest that … sustainable development is indeed the last refuge of humanism since it represents the final attempt to evade the limits to growth. But it is doomed to be dashed on the rocks of ecological decline. The only way to avoid terrible consequences of ecological meltdown … is to start putting the Earth first.”Second: The idea of “Sustainable” exploitation of resources is simply a smokescreen to justify ecological destruction. CPE[10]:“sustainable development … is all too frequently hijacked and erected as a smokescreen behind which to carry on business as usual in the form of unsustainable growth. Even amongst the genuinely well-intentioned, disappointingly few seem to have grasped the true implications of sustainability. There is a widespread misconception that a few add-on pollution controls plus a small increase in efficiency are all that is necessary to safeguard the future.”Lets go to my side of the flow now. Off of my observation:First: There's literally no rule stated above that allows him to co-opt all of my offense.Second: That's actually not my response at all. My arguments, since he's apparently not reading them correctly, are two-fold: one, that this kind of argument unfairly skews the available ground to make positions and cases off of, which harms the fairness of the debate, and fairness is important because the function of the ballot that voters vote on is to vote for the better debater but that’s fundamentally impossible if one side is skewed. Two, there's no case position I can take that is outside of his ability to co-opt it under the idea that "we can do economic development now and focus on the environment later", which kills any kind of discussion we could have on the topic, which harms the educational value of the debate, and the educational value is important because it's what gives this debate out-of-round value. In short, I'm saying your argument is abusive, and should be dropped. His only response to my observation is, as I just showed, non-responsive, so extend out my observation as unrefuted to. Force him to defend only economic development.Pro then concedes to the anthropocentrism by arguing that humans are inherently superior but never warrants this kind of claim at all, rather just asserts it. Then, his only response to my b-sub point is that I've committed the slippery-slope fallacy, copy-pasted to each card I used. However:1. The warrants coming out of Donovan are clear that the logic used behind persecuting animals has applied and is being applied to women, meaning that this subjugation does exist and it's not the slippery-slope fallacy.2. The warrants coming out of DeMello are clear that those are persecuting and being violent to animals are more likely to also be violent to humans as well. He apparently missed this whole part: "Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documented… The evidence is not …anecdotal; numerous studies … have shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commit … violent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence," 3. The warrants coming out of Smith are clear that the mindset of viewing others as inferior validates and has been used to justify the complete elimination of their life. Not only have all of these warrants gone unresponded to, but we can just look back at history to show how this anthropocentric logic has actually played out. It's the same mindset that we used against the Indians to justify the Trail of Tears[11], it's the same logic we used against women in the mid 1900's to justify denying them rights, it's the same logic we used against African Americans to justify enslaving them and forming massive lynch mobs to kill them, and it's the same logic the Nazis used against the Jews to kill off millions of their people. My arguments aren't the slippery-slope fallacy, they have happened and will continue to happen under this antropocentric mindset that my opponent is endorsing and advocating for.Then my opponent argues that the resolution is inherently anthropocentric and I'm not arguing for the best interest of the people of India.1. What the resolution looks like or not is irrelevant toward my burdens. My burden, as explicitly stated by the resolution, is to advocate prioritizing environmental protection, which I'm doing through my case.2. Unless mass subjugation, mass murder, and eventual extinction is within the best interest of the people of India, I'm pretty sure my case is in their best interest.To summarize all the responses thus far: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. 2. Force my opponent to just advocate for economic growth, as allowing him to take both sides is entirely unfair and abusive.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. And, to expand upon the impacts of anthropocentrism:The anthropocentric idea that non-humans do not have intrinsic value (which is what my opponent is advocating) is the root justification for genocide and oppression within the human world. D'amato and Chopra[12]:“Throughout history, the denial that other persons – outsiders, minority groups – as well as other animals, have a consciousness equivalent to our own has been the foundational philosophy for genocide and enslavement. This kind of denial of humanity to minority groups is the clearest form of inhumanity. The base evil of genocide, torture, or enslavement of minority or defenseless groups is matched only by the pseudo-rationalization that the victims are less than human. … Darwin saw clearly the empathic connection between opposition to slavery and opposition to cruelty to animals. … The mind set that exults in the … “sports” hunting of endangered wildlife species overlaps with the mind set that accepts genocide of “inferior” human being.”Sources (cont):[8] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.[9] Irvine, member of the Campaign for Political Ecology, 2001 [September 5, “Sustainable Development – The Last Refuge of Humanism?”] <murray>[10] The Campaign for Political Ecology, September 30, 2001 [“Sustainable development”, http://eco.gn.apc.org...] <Murray>[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] D’amato and Chopra 1991 (The American Journal International Law, 85 A.J.I.L. 21, Anthony, member of the board of Editors of the Journal, and Sudhir, staff attorney for the EPA)