Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Dealing first with the value clash that is evident in today"s debate: Circular reasoning: This argument is flawed. My opponent states that "the resolution clearly indicates morality, and he is upholding this inherent morality through morality". The use of the word ought in the resolution is expressing that the following action is morally right. If by upholding morality I show that resource extraction is morally right, then I have successfully negated the resolution. My opponent also says that if "an action is moral if it is consequential", an action is moral if it has consequence. My opponent is also not acknowledging here that in the terms of consequential in today"s debate, it is whichever brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. It is not "if it has consequence", therefore my opponent cannot claim that the argument I stated was invalid. About broadness, which I dealt with my criterion: If my opponent recognizes there are many ways to achieve morality, then we must use the one provided, being consequentialism, as the value criterion is meant to achieve the value premise. If my opponent is to bring broadness into this, and then argues that we must not have the criterion which itself provides an answer to my opponent"s argument, which my opponent does not accept saying that it is the criterion and therefore not part of the value clash, then my opponent is not recognizing that the criterion is a key part of the value clash being that it is how the value is upheld and interpreted. Maslow"s Hierarchy: If my opponent states "we must value safety as a way to determine moral worth", and goes on to state that morality does not fit in with this, my opponent is contradicting her argument that safety does not support morality, as if safety determines moral worth and therefore a code of conduct, my opponent is facilitating morality in order to justify safety. Criterion: My opponent states she wasn"t modifying my case, but clarifying terminology. What she is really doing is giving me a new criterion of utilitarianism, which is clearly not allowed. My opponent states back in the value clash that an action is moral if it has consequence, but then offers up a new definition of consequentialism, which, applied to morality, says that an action is moral if the consequences follow the definition of morality, being a code of conduct. With the definitions my opponent has offered, utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, maximizing utility. The reason I used consequentialism instead of utilitarianism: utilitarianism has come to be given a bad name in LD debate because people are averse to any form of sacrifice. I still retain a criterion of consequentialism, I however recognize that utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, and thereby is still consequentialism. My opponent also seeks to rebut my criterion by saying that it thereby goes to whoever maximizes the good. She states that minimizing the risk of harm, her criterion, is maximizing good, but minimizing harm is not necessarily creating good, it is emptying up the space that good will arrive at and then merely waits there for the good to arrive by itself, if you may allow me to personify our value clash. Therefore minimizing the risk of harm does not create good and is therefore not moral. Analyzing the resolution: My opponent analyzes the resolution by stating that the conflict is between environmental protection and resource extraction. However, if the resolution provided in my constructive is not enough to put forth my point, I state that the conflict is in developing countries, not between environmental protection and resource extraction so necessarily, as my opponent tries to make out that it is. Regarding my opponent"s defense on her Contention 1 (a): If my opponent interprets her evidence to be taken as an absolute, which is the only option if her contention states that resource extraction fuels violence, then I need only offer one counterexample to refute this absolute and thus nullify her contention sub-point. She states that extraction fuels violence, however, the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum states "Minerals and hydrocarbon development can be a pillar of future economic growth in Afghanistan by: creating both direct and indirect employment and income; developing transport and other infrastructure which will help open up areas for broader economic development; and generating considerable domestic revenue as well as trade and balance of payments benefits" These are the opposite of violence, being that they promote a stable nation. Therefore, resource extraction does not fuel violence in one example, which means the absolute my opponent stated is invalid. My opponent"s defense of C1(b): My opponent states that I have dismissed the premise of her argument. However, I am addressing her premise by stating that if we lock up resources by lowering environmental stress, we are in fact increasing violence by having less resources available, and therefore causing conflict over the existing resources. Humans fight for resources, and if there are a limited amount of resources they will fight even harder for it. Therefore, violence is increased. My opponent claims that procrastination is not the essence of this argument while defending the point by saying that the poor will have a good environment. She did not address the locking up of resources. My opponent"s defense of her C2: I talked about this just now, that having a nice environment to live in doesn"t matter, as sustainability locks up resources. Saying that I dropped the emphasis isn"t correct, as I made a point that contradicted the emphasis. My opponent claims that easing the suffering of the poor will be facilitated by making a safe environment for them to live in, which is actually just upholding the present situation. My opponent has never directly addressed this point, instead defending by expounding the benefits of having a safe environment. Defending my C1: My opponent states violence would end "if all of the resources from an area were extracted and the desire to control that area no longer existed.". She then states that this would cause long-lasting negative effects, which ending violence apparently does not justify. If we are to focus on sustainability, as my opponent very much wants, then we must make sure we have something to sustain. Violence, by its very nature, takes away peace, which ensures a future. The consequences of my opponent"s statement are a world where we fight over resources, while living in a healthy environment. That is not what we want, so my opponent"s argument is invalid. My opponent also states that resource extraction causes violence. However, "World Bank research on the root causes of conflict and civil war finds that a developing country's economic dependence on natural resources or other primary commodities is strongly associated with the risk level for violent conflict." 2. If natural resources are associated with violence, then my opponent"s statement is invalid. Defending my C2: My opponent states that as she has refuted my attacks on her second contention which I linked my prior defense of this too, she therefore has refuted my defense. Restating a rebuttal against her refutation of my defense, protection being prioritized would lead to less resources being extracted, which I have stated over and over again. As we need resources from extraction in order to raise the standard of living instead of having it remain the same, less resources extracted means less relief for the poor. My opponent states that valuing protection means that we get protection as well as enough resources from extraction. However, that is not true, as protection indeed reduces resources extracted, which, as stated above, is bad and does less to improve the standard of living. Defense of my C3: My opponent states that the good of animals and humans are not mutually exclusive, however, they indeed are, as according to a sourcewatch.org report3, "fuel oil is a byproduct of oil production that is used by many cargo ships because it is cheap, but also full of contaminants... making it dangerous for animals and hard to clean up.". As oil benefits humans and harms animals, the good of animals is mutually exclusive with the good of humans. Saying that they are not mutually exclusive is a direct contradiction of my prior evidence. My opponent also failed to provide an example of that clear link, therefore, my evidence stands and shows that her attack falls. A few main reasons why the Con deserves the ballot. 1. Resource extraction and the standard of living: In the various times this issue has come up in today"s debate, my opponent has failed to negate the fact that resource extraction does indeed provide for a better standard of living. She instead says that protection is better for poor citizens as it ensures a good environment for them to live in. However, in the times this has come up, she did not address the fact that less resources allow for a lower standard of living to come about, which is not just. 2. The value clash: My opponent said in various times including her closing statement, that she upholds consequentialism as protection upholds the most good. She then says that consequentialism leads to safety, which is saying that the most good leads to safety. A more logical way to address this is that safety leads to the most good, as evident in happenings such as a firefighter rescuing handicapped people from a burning building. If safety is provided for, and the most good occurs, then safety supports consequentialism, and therefore morality. It is for these reasons that I stand to negate today"s resolution, and urge a Con ballot. 2- http://web.worldbank.org... 3- http://www.sourcewatch.org...