Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.

As a brief road map. I will be attacking the Con, and defending the Pro. Con- Value- First off, we look at my opponent's value of Happiness. Happiness is a very shallow,if not the most shallow value value that could ever be held. It's a fleeting emotion tied from anything and everything from kittens to thermonuclear reactors. In fact it's a value so easily achieved that even if you completely ignore the Con case, and tie the value of Happiness to the Pro case, I achieve it. Second, Happiness is a subsidiary value to Life. A dead man cannot be happy, thus before we ever value happiness we must value life. Finally, a Con vote will neither achieve happiness, nor maximize it. When happiness is contingent on possession, electricity, or oil; it can only last so long as society is satisfied with their electronics. Criterion- My opponent offers the Criterion of energy; however energy is not a criterion, it is not a weighing mechanism. Energy is a means to an end. My opponent's should actually be Cars, Computers, Video Games, and any other product that uses energy. Honestly, who do you know that that has their fun by staring an electric outlet, or a gas pump? The point I want to drive home with this argument is two fold One, the things my opponent is advocating are nothing bu shallow and fleeting pleasures. Two, my opponent has no weighing mechanism to truly achieve happiness. Contention 1- I'm just going to list out a few basic arguments against this contention here. + Citizens have had the option to switch to electric cars for quite a few years now + Oil is not the only power sources, in fact along with the prior mentioned electrical car, there are engines that can run off of sea water[1] Vegetable oil[2] and even human excrement[3]. There are no end to alternative fuel sources that can be supplemented for Gas, Oil and Petroleum needs. + The impact here, is that my opponent has no impact. We as Americans need to abandon our false idea that Oil is the only energy recourse we have. Otherwise not only do we begin to fall prey to valuing such shallow things as happiness, but we destroy our environment needlessly, and rob not only people, but plants and animals of life. Pro Value- My opponent's only attack was that life will always exist, to this I say dinosaurs. That's right, dinosaurs. To say that life will always exist is to ignore the real problem here, that life will only exist if we value it. Also, I extend my attack on my opponent's value, that without life we cannot value happiness. A dead man cannot be happy, he's dead. Also I want to provide two quick clarifications, 1. I'm not valuing just human life, but all life as a whole 2. I realize that death is an inevitable part of life, My goal here is to maximize life, not ensure to everything. Criterion- My opponent's attack here is simply based on him not fully reading, or at least not fully understand, my criterion. The Environmental Wisdom World View, dictates not that all other forms of life are more important that human life, but that all life is sacred, and doesn't belong exclusively to humanity. It claims that resources are not human property, but the shared property of all of nature, and we shouldn't act in a way that selfishly benefits ourselves if it hurts nature. It it only through this criterion that that we not only maximize life, but we also keep ourselves safe from falling into the valuing selfish thing, and even forcing ourselves to believe that they're necessities. Contention 1- I'm going to address each of my opponent's attacks directly Attack 1- My opponent claims that the same technology that has killed all these people, has saved the lives of numerous cancer patients. 35,000 to be exact. However I have several rebuttals to this. First, there are many other cures to cancer that aren't used simply because they cannot be marketed as drugs in the united states.[4] Second millions of people have cancer, and although Chemotherapy is the industry standard millions of people still die every year due to cancer, and failed Chemotherapy. Chemoherapy only has an overall success rate of 2%[5] Attack 2- I expressly spoke of how even today, there are increased levels of thyroid cancer in these areas due to this terrible accident. Attack 3- Here I just want to extend all of the arguments I made on my opponent's Value and Criteria, he never really succeeds in solving for the harms I present here, and instead simply claims that we still have all of this innovative technology that makes up for the environmental damage, and live lost. However as I cannot stress enough, no amount of technology, or fancy toys will ever equate human life. Contention 2- + First my opponent completely disregards my argument here, once I show how this does indeed tie into the resolution, I will have enough impact here alone to win the debate. First, as my opponent said the company made chemicals; many of which where used in energy production. Second, When these people moved onto this land, it cannot be denied that energy was produced here. This coupled with the Pro Value makes for a direct link into the resolution Contention 3- There is absolutely no refutation here. Obviously the people affected by this tragedy do not have happiness, and they've also lost plenty of life in this disaster. I also want to extend the arguments I made on my opponents sole contention, Oil is not the only means to obtain energy, we have plenty of resources, and ingenuity to make up for the what we would lose in oil. Also, I'm advocating for complete removal of oil, at least not immediately. All I'm saying is that this painfully over dependance on oil has ravaged our environment time and time again, and we continue to see it's affect on life, but human and animal life. There are others means to this same end, and this absurd obsession with Oil will only end up destroying humanity I urge an affirmative vote in this debate. = Sources = [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl...