The Instigator
TheNamesFizzy
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
LevelOne
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheNamesFizzy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 67104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

TheNamesFizzy

Pro

8,000 characters/72 hours/4 rounds.

Prioritize: designate or treat (something) as more important than other things.

Prioritizing something does not mean eliminating the other.

Ought: moral obligation

BoP on affirmative is to prove we ought to prioritize EP
BoP on negative is to prove we ought to prioritize RE (don't try to take middle ground, automatic loss)

First round acceptance.
LevelOne

Con

Since the argument is set up that their is no other possible alternative:
Developing countries OUGHT NOT to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

Developing nations need security.
Developing nations are vulnerable to attack from stronger nations and thus need to use their own resources for Economic self- sufficiency and military development, least they be prey to more developed nations.

Developed nations will start wars to take advantage of less developed weaker nations so that they can exploit these resources at the expense of the environment.
Debate Round No. 1
TheNamesFizzy

Pro

C1: Negating the Resolution would Promote Violence

a) resource extraction increases violence

Resource extraction ultimately ends up being linked to violence; the reason they are linked is because armed violence is often connected to the foundation of resource extraction, as explained by the following quotation from the article Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation

“The authors conclude that the natural resource base on which industrial societies stand is constructed in large part through the use and threatened use of armed violence.”

Therefore, fueling extraction fuels violence which threatens the safety of the individuals in the country resources are extracted from.


b) environmental protection lowers the likelihood of violence by decreasing environmental stress

The idea of the “greenwar hypothesis” also points to the role that environmental stress plays in creating violence. Summarized by Stewart Frances as, “Environmental stress tends to make people prone to violence as they seek alternatives to desperate situations” (pg. 9). Prioritization of environmental protection decreases this stress because it keeps environmental resources from being degraded to the point that they are too limited. The reasoning behind this brings us to our second point.




C2: Negating the Resolution Harms Environmental Sustainability

The most important aspect of this point is that environmental protection serves to balance out resource extraction. Resource extraction depletes the environment, not only by how it uses up resources, but the pollution and other long-lasting effects it leaves behind5. Due to its harmful nature, prioritization ought to go to environmental protection, in order to ensure that on balance the environment is still sustainable. If place the emphasis in the other direction of this relationship, that encourages depletion of the environment, which is quite simply necessary for the protection of not only our own lives, but also those of countless other species. Clearly, we ought to prioritize protection over extraction to maintain a healthy environment.

B. Future implications of resource extraction guide us to a harder future that can be avoided. The Niger Delta in Nigeria region could experience a loss of 40% of its inhabitable terrain in the next thirty years as a result of extensive dam construction in the region. The carelessness of the oil industry has also precipitated this situation, which can perhaps be best encapsulated by a 1983 report issued by the NNPC, long before popular unrest surfaced: We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry'.[1] The amount of money earned does not justify poisoning water supplies and not protecting the environment.


Contention 3: Resources can be more helpful for development when regulated correctly

Point A. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo for example. It is the world’s largest producer of cobalt (49% of the world production in 2009) and of industrial diamonds (30%). it has around 2/3 of the world’s deposits of coltan and significant deposits of copper and tin. At the same time, it has the world’s worst growth rate and the 8th lowest GDP per capita over last 40 years.The picture for Sierra Leone and Liberia is very similar – they possess immense natural wealth, yet they are found among the worst performers both in terms of economic growth and GDP per capita. While the experiences of countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela are not as extreme their resource wealth in terms of natural gas and oil respectively seem to have brought serious problems in terms of low growth, increased inequality and corruption. It’s also important that environmental protection can also help receive more income, In Chile in the 1990s while the country was developing its legal and institutional frameworks, large mining companies voluntarily committed to substantive environmental agreements. One study found that top environmental performers among the mining companies worldwide posted returns 60 percent higher over a three year period than those that were classified as poor performers. The mining industry in Peru as well is well regulated and has relatively straightforward mining laws. The government grants four different kinds of concessions for various mining activities. Mining companies must pay the ongoing fees for these concessions, and submit environmental impact studies for any exploration or development activity. Water rights and surface land rights must be obtained separately, and companies are obligated by law to consult with local indigenous people about any development projects near their communities.




B. Dependence on these resources also can perpetuate poverty. The empirical evidence to date, mostly from studies of forest activities and poverty. Collier and Goderis simulate the outcome of the current commodity boom and find that, if history repeats itself, after two decades output for the typical African commodity exporter will be around 25 percent lower than it would have been without the boom. With the correct regulations put on this income, it can become a much more dependable source of income as well as keeping the living conditions safer than it would be otherwise.


LevelOne

Con

LevelOne forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheNamesFizzy

Pro

Lame, extend.
LevelOne

Con

LevelOne forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 1 year ago
jackh4mm3r
TheNamesFizzyLevelOneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeiture, arguments for non-rebuttal. Considering I would have taken the Con side, I agree with Pro's R3 post.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
TheNamesFizzyLevelOneTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 1 year ago
Krazzy_Player
TheNamesFizzyLevelOneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
TheNamesFizzyLevelOneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff