Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I. Defining Resource ExtractionIt's very important that me and my opponent get on the same page here, because it's not happening. Resource extraction can include the harvesting, mining, or obtaining of any resource. My opponent wants to restrict me solely to mining, and things like fracking, which I refuse to do. I did not accept the debate under that context, and her own resolution suggests the extraction of any resource. Whether that be water, corn, or salt. I hope my opponent understands that you cant make a resolution saying "resource extraction" and restrict me to one archetype of the overlying category. That is foolish, and not acceptable in a debate of this time and magnitude. Thank you, and let's proceed. II. Surplus MoneyI want to address this point before I continue on to the others the opposition has made. This is due to her calling me out as dropping her arguments. This is not so. Her whole BOP resides on proving that you need to make money before you can be green. Otherwise, everyone would already be green.P1: Resource extraction is used to create surplus wealth (Net profit)P2: Resource extraction costs moneyP3: Green Technology can be and almost always is more expensive than base technologyC1: Developing Nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technologyThe resolution has become more along the lines of becoming green before making money. This is great, but you need money to be green. It does not work vice versa, and this is where my opponent completely drops the ball. She refuses to tell me or the audience how she plans on making a nation green, without being wealthy.Unless my opponent can provide definite reasoning that people can make a nation green without making money, then her BOP is very much negated. This is not a net-good/net-harm debate. This is a one sided burden placed on my opponent, and it should be considered to the fullest extent. She can not simply shift saying "we don't know all forms of being green", or "The scenarios are to broad to answer". This is premise dropping, anyway you cut it.P1: If nations had the money to be green, they wouldP2: Nations who don't have the money to be green, need to make moneyC1: Developing countries should prioritize making money before trying to be greenIf the resolution was, "Developing nations should put more emphasis on being green", then I would agree with her. What the opposition and audience needs to understand though, is that money fixes most problems, and few things can be accomplished without $cash$.III. Environmentalist Rhetoric I want to emphasize this point again, and take note, this is not a shot at my opponent. Rhetoric was a classical school of debate, and is still taught in some colleges. Today though, it does not hold when it has been called out. My opponent and me agree. Resource extraction can hurt a nation, and being green helps it. This is not the crux of any of my arguments though. It's about what should be the priority, and you can't sauce a pizza without rolling the dough (Sorry, bad analogy).The point is that becoming green is step 2. Making money is step 1. You can't spend money you don't have, and for developing nations, resource extraction is the number one source of wealth. Trading commodities is really the only available market for developing countries. Let's take a look at this google search. https://www.google.com...Can my opponent name one developing nation that makes wealth on trades not based in commodities? The US doesn't produce as much resources anymore, because we created so much surplus wealth, we can focus on trading other peoples commodities. This is not true for the third world. They are stuck with one way to alleviate poverty, and that is resource extraction. This should be their first priority.IV. Being green doesn't make you the "greens" (money)My opponent has dropped this point as well. She must concede that resource extraction is the #1 way developing nations make money, but how can she attempt to prove being green is even a close #2? She can't. Her one contention was that being green "helps" resource extraction go smoother. It "helps" make more money. She has indirectly stated this. Even if this were true, she is conceding that being green is supportive in making money, which is not prioritizing.Opponent Siphoned Contention (Not True per say)P1: Being green supports the endeavor of making money P2: Being green does not actually make money by itselfC1: Being green is not a priority in stimulating wealth.This contention does not negate her whole resolution, but it sure take a hell of a chunk out of it. Rebuttals V. China did not alleviate its poverty through resource extraction Two things to restate here. Harvesting food is indeed extracting a resource. China did in fact alleviate poverty through extraction of resources. Let's look at a treemap, to see if China makes its money through commodity exporting or importing. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...Now lets take a quick look at the commodities that are being exported. Over half of their economic exports are based in resources natural to China. It's official, China is making 50% of its economic complexity on inner resource extraction, which in the 80;s (when the boom started), it was entirely based in extracting resources. They can afford to spend 100% of their money on raw materials needed to ship out of the country as a result of resource extraction.In conclusion, China's success, is very much accredited to its vast extraction of resources. VI. Environmental protection preserves resources, IE, making more money This argument (the content within it) was a sight for sore eyes. The opposition contended that preserving resources to last longer makes that resource more profitable. At least I assume, because this reasoning makes no sense. Selling resources now produces the same amount of money as if we exported them later (Commodity prices exempted). The definition of economics, as learned in any Macro 1 course, is how the world decides to use its scare resources. My opponent has attempted to make an argument that breaks this fundamental rule. All resources are scare, and if the demand for a product exceeds its supply, it is a luxury. If the supply of a product exceeds its demand, it becomes free. All resources eventually disappear. This is a fundamental truth.No resource can reproduce forever, which is why this contention really comes down to one thing. Will making money now, help make more money later? Or will being green now, make more money later? Which brings me back to my earlier point. Being green costs money, which is why resource extraction (making money) will always be of first priority.VII. ConclusionThanks for the debate, but my opponent BOP completely bombs in several areas, and due to the nature of this site, this should be taken very seriously. Until my opponent can resolve every issue brought forward, her BOP is negated.