The Instigator
debatability
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
debatability
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,560 times Debate No: 56249
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (7)

 

debatability

Pro

I changed my position to affirmative.

The full resolution is: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.

Round one for acceptance. Good luck to ChosenWolff!!
ChosenWolff

Con

I gratefully accept my challenge. Thank you debateability, and good luck!

Debate Round No. 1
debatability

Pro

This is a Lincoln Douglass topic, but since my opponent will not be arguing in the typical LD format, neither will I.

Definitions and Observations

Developing Country- a poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Developing Country- countries with a GNI of US $11,905 and less are defined as developing (World Bank 2012)
I used two definitions. The first one describes what a developing country is aiming to do, and the second one explains what results in a developing country technically being considered "developing."

Environmental Protection- environmental guardianship based on policies and procedures (Black’s Law Dictionary)
1. the conserving of natural resources
2. the preserving of the existing natural environment
3. where possible, repairing damage and reversing trends

Resource Extraction- the action of taking out a country’s collective means of supporting itself of becoming wealthier, as represented by its reserves of minerals, land, and other assets esp. using effort of force (New Oxford American Dictionary)

Conflict- A serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one

1. This debate is over only instances where environmental protection is in direct conflict with resource extraction. All the examples I provide are instances where resource extraction has substantially hindered environmental protection.
2. My opponent cannot argue for holding both environmental protection and resource extraction equally since this debate is only over instances where the two cannot coexist.

Arguments
Points 1 and 2 talk about how protecting the environment helps citizens of developing countries (as well as citizens outside developing countries) because environmental degradation in one country can obviously affect countries around it. Points 3, 4, and 5 talk about how protecting the environment will ultimately help the nation develop both economically and socially.

1. Developing countries have unstable environments due to resource extraction.
Unclean water is responsible for approximately 3.1% of all deaths worldwide. 99% of these deaths are in developing countries (1). Highly toxic chemicals are used to separate metals from the ore, and at the end of operation, the resulting waste may threaten to poison the nearby soil, waterways, and wildlife (2).” So essentially, mining can result in unclean water. Farming (which fits my definition of resource extraction) can contribute to this problem if done incorrectly. The over fertilization of plants can result in unusable groundwater in poor countries (3). Another major issue is outdoor air pollution which results in around 800,000 deaths each year. “Resource extraction and processing industries, which are common in developing countries, emit dust or hazardous fumes at the worksite (4).”
One billion people, worldwide, rely on forest based assets to live. This is about 1/7 of our population. Even though taking good care of our ecosystems is important, 15 out of the 24 essential services from ecosystems are currently being eroded (1). Look at this chart:

Here we can see that security, basic materials, and health benefits come from ecosystem services. Excessive resource extraction interferes with all these things.

2. Ensuring environmental stability through the prioritization of environmental protection over resource extraction will benefit developing countries.
Achieving environmental stability has had many benefits for developing countries, as shown in the case of Albania. In 2005, Albania began to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction due to all the damages done by excessive deforestation. According to the Global Environment Facility, when Albania prioritized environmental protection, within three years (by 2008), a large governmental staff in charge of forest extension was developed, natural forest habitats and scrub forest coverage were improved and increased, and 400,000 tons of erosion had been reduced, enabling citizens to farm. The country also began to work on stricter law enforcement (5).
Another example would be Nepal. In 2001, Nepal began the process of reforestation. The forest coverage increased by 1.35 percent from 2001 to 2005. This may seem like a small amount, but there were a large amount of benefits. UNEP states, "The remarkable turnaround in forest management in Nepal is directly attributable to the benefits generated for community groups, in the form of environmental goods, services, and welfare enhancements (6)."

3. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) are best achieved through environmental protection.
I will be as brief as possible with this point, but I aim to explain that the MDG’s are best achieved through environmental protection. I only covered the goals that I feel have direct environmental linkages (1).
1. Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.
I’d like to go back to my point on the destruction of ecosystems. 15 out of the 24 essential services for life are being eroded. Also, impoverished individuals in developing countries often have to look to farming in order to obtain food. In cases such as Lesotho, resource extraction has rendered only 10 percent of their soil usable (7).
2. Reduce child mortality:
Most of the people who die from water diseases are under the age of five. Reference my point about water pollution above.
3. Combat diseases:
My OECD card notes that U33; of all diseases in developing countries is associated with environmental risk factors. Protecting the environment helps prevent such diseases. Obviously, prevention is more effective than treatment when it comes to combating diseases.
4. Ensure environmental sustainability:
1 billion people currently rely on forest based assets to live. “Current trends in environmental degradation that are caused by resource extraction must be reversed to sustain the health and productivity of the world’s ecosystems.”

4. Economic development is achieved by the prioritization environmental protection.
According to the International Journal for Rural Development, 4-12% of Africa’s GDP is lost due to environmental degradation (8). OECD states that environmental wealth counts for 25% of the total wealth within low-income countries (1). If developing countries prioritize environmental protection they will increase their environmental wealth and obtain a higher GDP. So, in the end, money spent on environmental degradation will go towards achieving development while keeping the environment stable.

5. Economic development is hindered by the prioritization of resource extraction
The resource curse takes place when countries begin to extract a large amount of nonrenewable resources. The resource curse, defined by the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics from Ohio State University, says the natural resource curse refers to the paradox that countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources, like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources (9). Developing countries with low amounts of economic growth are often the ones with an abundance of natural resources. In addition to this, an article from The Atlantic emphasizes that the money provided from resource extraction goes only to the elite of society, and poverty is in no way being decreased (10). A study from MIT tech notes that in developing countries, corruption is much more prevalent, thus the resource curse and misuse of money from resources is a very large of problem (11).

(1) http://www.oecd.org... If the link doesn't take you to the source, type this into Google, "OECD- Why a Healthy Environment is Essential to Reducing Poverty."
(2) http://www.wupperinst.org... (page 10)
(3) http://www.fao.org...
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(5) http://www.thegef.org...
(6) http://www.unep.org...
(7) http://www.irinnews.org...
(8) http://www.rural21.com...
(9) http://www.neaef.org...
(10) http://www.theatlantic.com...
(11) http://economics.mit.edu...

ChosenWolff

Con

I. Preface

I want to clarify the definition of a resource.

re·source
a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.

I have specifically provided this definition, due to what constitutes a resource was not stated by my opponent. Since it was not defined nor stated, we will assume that it is any resource, supply, support, or aid. In addition, it will obviously be assumed these resources can be extracted, therefore, the resolution most likely is referring to mining, oil, ect.

I will be narrowing what I argue in this debate to 1 or 2 nations. The main conduit for my arguments will be through the country of Ethiopia, which I choose due to its direct history relating to this debate, and that I'm already knowledgable on green concerns over their.

The audience should be aware, that if I can prove that at least one nation benefits more from resource extraction, then the entire BOP of my opponent is obliterated. Fortunately, I will also try to convey my messages on a international scale.

II. New rules made in R2

My opponent has made two new rules in R2, that I was not ready nor aware of, and these should be diregarded. If you have rules you want listed, you must do this in R1, which you specifically made an acceptance round. I hope you can respect this, and these are the following two rules which will not apply to our debate....

1. Argument made where enviormental protection directly conflict with resource extraction

2. Contentions (Only me), cannot be argued that hold both enviornmental and resource extraction equally.

I am in opposition to both of these new rules, and the audience should not hold me by things stated after I accepted the debate. Please remember that when casting your vote.

III. Water Problem

There are a dozen African nations that have suffered serious droughts within the past decade. With droughts come crop shortages, or famine, and without food, everyone within the nation slowly starve. Including the middle class, who sustain the job creators, and slowly, you are left with a collapsed economy.

These nations are completely desolate, and there is not enough food in the world to satisfy them all. Back in the 70's, their was a military junta called the Derg in Ethiopia. Suffering serious famines left most of the nation in serious pain. With a 10% literacy rate, and the majority of its citizens living in extreme poverty, it became the UN food bag of the world.

Ethiopia has about 40 large river masses, but almost no irrigation. The Derg adopted a rapid industrialization policy that tore into the earth, forcing fast irrigation at low costs. Millions of lives were saved, and crop production soared, and while the nation was still hurt by the famine, in about 8 years, Ethiopia went from having a 10% literacy rate to a 63% one.

Several other nations adopted this forced irrigation policy, and although it hurt the land, it uplifted millions into the middle class, and everyone else could survive on more than 30 grains of rice a day (Some people in Africa are lucky to get 10). Tell me that Africa should of sat their and watch the bodies pile up?

IV/V. United Nations Millennium Goals vs United Nations International Poverty Benchmarks

We all know the toll famine took on the world in the 70's. Let me explain the story of China, who was the only nation to achieve the UN international poverty benchmark, and they did it through prioritization of resource extraction over enviornmental protection.



China, over a course of 20 years, lifted about 650 million people out of poverty. Do you know how they did this? They carved paths through rare earth deposits. They scorched land so it would grow back fertile. Many Chinese farmers began using intense pesticide formulas designed to kill swarms of bugs.

This created a food, material, and population surplus. Not only does China have enough resources to build products itself, but it has millions of raw materials to ship to foreign manafacturers. It's clear how they did this. They took the earth for all it beared, and put that to use for the 650 million people making less than 1.25$ a day (Adjusted to USD).

VI. Surplus of Money

The ultimate goal for every modern capitalist, is to make net profit on investments. Not small profits, Large profit margins. Ussually enough to create a surplus of money. You see, green technology isn't used much because it's expensive. That's right, green technology like windmills or clean earth boreholes can cost up to twice as much in both upkeep and expenses than their normal counterparts.

The universal theory in economics is that one must spend money to make money. The same applies here. A nation can afford to be more green later, if it is less green now. Mining companies can't make a profit if their nations start telling them to double their upkeep costs. Nor can impovershed farmers buy food if they are forced to use the expensive fatigucides imported from Germany.

Third world nations are to poor already, and its easy to just say they need to be more green, but when you really start weighing the costs on a macro scale, your presented with millions of problems. The BOP requires my opponent to respond to this point with much detail.

If nations can become profitable, then we can consider new fancy solar panels, or draining wharves (Don't know their real name).

VIII. Conclusion

The opposition has done nothing, besides stating all the benefits of being green. She has not told us all the details we need. How can nations afford it? Who's @ss do they need to kiss to get the resources. These are important questions, that have failed to be answered by her OP.

Let's not insult the audience's intelligence. They already know the song and dance. Keep the world clean and preserved, and we'll be happy and beneficial in the long run! Yay! I would agree for a nation on the magnitude of the United States of France, but third world nations are "undeveloped" and for the most part, "untouched".

We should not be opposed, and actually encourage, the beneficial exploitation of the resources that will allow them to become a more profitable and enviornmentally concious nation in the future.
Debate Round No. 2
debatability

Pro

Definitions
My opponent went ahead and clarified the definition of resources. Note that I clarified what resources were in my definition of resource extraction. Since my opponent and I have very similar definitions, I am okay with my opponent's definition.
My opponent then explains that one example will result in my not fulfilling my BoP. This is highly abusive because the resolution is talking about developing countries in general, not developing countries in every single circumstance. Thus, my opponent should at least try to talk about more than a few developing countries.

Observations
My opponent misunderstood the goal of my observations. I am simply clarifying what exactly we will be arguing about. I stated the full resolution in R1 and these two observations are simply for the purpose of making sure this debate is over the resolution. "Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict."
  1. The first observation explains that all my arguments are where environmental conflicts with resource extraction. This is because the resolution states this debate is over instances when the two are in conflict.
  2. Logically, if the debate is over when the two are in conflict. Neither I, nor my opponent can argue for the two to be held equally. My opponent seemed to misinterpret this; this observation does not only apply to him, but to me as well.
Unless my opponent can explain how these observations contradict the resolution at hand, they must be followed throughout the debate.

My Arguments

1. Developing countries have unstable environments due to resource extraction.
Water- Firstly, my opponent never addresses my claim over water diseases resulting from excessive resource extraction. Instead, he brings up how forced irrigation benefited the people of Ethiopia. It is important to observe that irrigation is not a form of resource extraction. It does not fit my opponent's definition because irrigation itself is not a "source of supply, support or aid that can be drawn upon when needed" as my opponent's definition says. Therefore, this argument is out of the scope of the resolution and cannot be taken into account.
Air- My opponent completely dropped this point. 800,000 people currently die each year from air pollution which can be caused by resource extraction.
Forest Based Assets- My opponent also drops this point. Excessive deforestation in developing countries is exactly why 15 out of the essential services are currently being eroded. This is negatively impacting one seventh of the population which is currently counting on forest based assets to live.

2. Ensuring environmental stability through the prioritization of environmental protection over resource extraction will benefit developing countries.
My opponent also drops this argument. I showed in these examples that the prioritization of environmental protection benefits developing countries in many ways. In Albania, it enabled citizens to farm. In Nepal, "The remarkable turnaround in forest management in Nepal is directly attributable to the benefits generated for community groups, in the form of environmental goods, services, and welfare enhancements." I would suggest that my opponent skim through source #6. This source contains many examples where environmental protection has benefited developing countries.

3. Millennium Development Goals (Social Development) and 4. Economic Development
So, these points were about development. My opponent counters this by using China as an example. He explains that China used resource extraction to decrease poverty in their country in 1981-2008. I would like to note that absolutely no evidence is provided as to HOW China decreased poverty. Take a look at this list of things China did to decrease poverty (1).


    • The collective agricultural service, set up by the People's Commune System (chief source or rural poverty) was gradually eliminated.
    • Due to land reform, it was possible for citizens to purchase individually owned plots. This increased farmer's productivity, therefore boosting the economy.
    • The government increased agricultural investments. One of the things they did was begin to use chemical fertilizers. Note that this is not an example of environmental protection/resource extraction conflict as long as the plants are not over fertilized.
    • The government boosted the price of produce from farmers.
    • Developmental assistance was given to various parts of the country that needed a large amount of help.
    • Laborers from the poorer regions were encouraged to migrate.
Notice that none of these points have anything to do with resource extraction. The truth is, China was able to successfully decrease poverty in by focusing on something that will actually benefit the citizens: agriculture. The things on the list are all either benefit the environment of simply don't affect it. Look to my fifth point in the R2. I explained that due to the corruption in developing countries, the money from resource extraction doesn't go to the impoverished individuals in society. Rather, it goes to the government. Environmental protection is an action that benefits the citizens of the developing country. Thus, in situations where countries have to choose between environmental protection and resource extraction, environmental protection is the ultimate choice.

Also, look to the fact that when affirming the resolution, resource extraction is not abolished. Countries can still extract resources unless the extraction process seriously harms the environment. I explained in R2 that 25% of developing country's wealth comes from the environment. This 25% of the GDP is the part that is being given back to the citizens. In the case of Guatemala, the GDP went down 25% due to environmental problems. Not surprisingly, 75% of all citizens are living below the poverty line (2) and there is a large amount of corruption. This is a prime example of the resource curse. IN this case, and in the case of many other developing countries, the protection of the environment is the way to go. Environmental protection allows for more farming, and as we saw in the example of China, this can seriously benefit the economy.

5. Economic development is hindered by the prioritization of resource extraction.
This is probably my most important point, yet my opponent did little to attack it. Here I proved that due to the high corruption levels, resource extraction often does little for the citizens (yet, as I have shown above), environmental protection can do a lot. Resources benefit the elite; the environment benefits the impoverished. Some environmental issues hurt everyone. Furthermore, many of the resources being extracted rapidly to make money are nonrenewable. If a country continues to extract the resources at such a rate, they will inevitably become harder to find. The country (developed or not) will certainly suffer if they run out of the resource that they rely on of income.

Opponent's Arguments

Surplus of Money
My opponent basically explains (using no sources) that resource extraction does not account for any extra money and that it is very expensive. I'll go ahead and address a couple statements.

"Green technology isn't used much because it is expensive."
Let's look at the definition of green technology... "Technology whose use is intended to mitigate or reverse the effects of human activity on the environment (Oxford)." Green technology is a part of environmental protection, but it is not environmental protection itself. Environmental protection can come in ways that do not involve expensive technology. I would agree that environmental protection does cost money, but its benefits are undeniable.

"...when you start weighing the cost on a macro scale, you're presented with millions of problems."
Look to the fact that my opponent has not cited one example where resource extraction has hindered a developing country from social/economic development. Also, my opponent has provided no number for this "large cost" of environmental protection. I have shown through my evidence that the right way to develop is environmental protection because resource extraction simply does nothing for the impoverished. As I said above, look at source #6 that I cited in R2 for a multitude of success stories.

"If nations become profitable, then we can consider fancy new solar panels, or draining wharves."
These things are not exactly the type of environmental protection that we would most likely see being prioritized in developing countries.

Conclusion
Here, my opponent simply asks how developing countries are supposed to obtain money for environmental protection. I cannot give one generic answer because developing countries have different environmental issues, different resources, and different incomes. It is important to remember that developing countries have an environmental protection/resource extraction conflict, they must be getting some money from resource extraction. The idea is that this money, rather than going to the elite of society should be used for protecting the environment. As I showed throughout my case, this gives the country both economic and social development in the right way. As I said earlier, my opponent give no example of a developing country that has been negatively impacted through environmental protection. This is because environmental protection has numerous benefits that far outweigh its cost.

(1) http://borgenproject.org...
(2) http://web.worldbank.org...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Defining Resource Extraction

It'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 Money

I 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 money
P3: Green Technology can be and almost always is more expensive than base technology
C1: Developing Nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technology

The 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 would
P2: Nations who don't have the money to be green, need to make money
C1: Developing countries should prioritize making money before trying to be green

If 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 itself
C1: 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.

Tree map export che chn show 2009.svg

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. Conclusion

Thanks 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.
Debate Round No. 3
debatability

Pro

I'll go ahead and address each point my opponent made one by one. Then, I will provide voting issues.

Definitions and Observations
My opponent notes that resource extraction is any way of obtaining a resource. I would agree with this statement completely. However, we have to realize that not all forms of resource extraction do damage to the earth. I am not restricting my opponent to any certain type of resource extraction, however, if the form of resource extraction does not come into conflict with environmental protection then it is out of the scope of the resolution.
Example: So, obtaining water could be considered resource extraction, but if it doesn't cause conflict with environmental protection then it is not an issue. If it does, then obviously the process of extracting water would not be taken away. Rather, developing countries would find a way to prioritize environmental protection by finding a more green method of obtaining water.

Opponent's Arguments

Surplus Money
I'll address each point made here.
P1: Resource extraction is used to create surplus wealth.
P2: Resource extraction costs money.
P3: Green technology can be and almost always is more expensive than base technology.
C1: Developing Nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technology.
Here, my opponent is assuming that developing countries have no money to prioritize environmental protection. I'll make a few points:
1. As the resolution says, we are debating instances where environmental protection and resource extraction are in conflict. The reason they are in conflict is because the resource is giving the country money... As my opponent says, resource extraction creates surplus wealth. So if the two are in conflict, we can assume that is because money comes from resource extraction (if the resource made no money, what would be the point of extraction?)
2. This surplus wealth (whether the resource is causing environmental problems or not) is mostly going to the elite of society. The impoverished are not benefited.
3. Some of the surplus wealth SHOULD be used to prioritize environmental protection if that certain type of resource extraction is causing environmental issues.
Remember, developing countries also obtain surplus money from resources that do not hurt the environment. Because of corruption, the money doesn't go where it should. Realistically, if a government is corrupt, environmental protection is probably not a priority. However, this debate is over whether developing countries SHOULD prioritize environmental protection (rather than if they will).
My opponent then goes on to explain that I cannot claim environmental protection/resource extraction scenarios are too broad to answer. I would agree with this. However, this does not change the fact that every developing country has different issues. Some issues are a simple fix, while others are more complex/expensive. As I explained above, developing countries can use the surplus wealth from resources for environmental protection. If the issue is to complex for the country to resolve on it's own, then often developed countries will step in. My opponent has provided absolutely no examples of a developing country that was unable to prioritize environmental protection due to lack of money, nor has he provided a country that was negatively impacted by environmental protection. Thus, my BoP is upheld.
P1: If nations had money to be green they would.
P2: Nations who don't have money to be green, need to make money.
C1: Developing countries should prioritize making money before trying to be green.
To summarize what I've said before...
An environmental protection/resource extraction conflict implies that surplus wealth is coming from the resource. Developing countries can use this money to be green.

Environmentalist Rhetoric
My opponent explains that making money is step one and becoming green is step two. I agree. However, developing countries do have money. It may not be a huge amount but (given that resources are being extracted) there will be some degree of surplus wealth. This should be spent on environmental protection if the resource extraction is hurting the environment.
My opponent shows that trading commodities are the only available market for developing countries. We have to remember that the prioritization of environmental protection does not result in such commodities being taken away. Prioritization simply means putting something first. Also, my opponent has not showed whether or not these commodities directly hurt the environment, so many of them could be out of the scope of the resolution and a way of providing surplus wealth for the country to develop/protect the environment. The reason developing countries are so poor is that the money is going to the wrong place.

Being green doesn't make developing countries money.
I agree that resource extraction will make the most profit. The problem is, this money is not going to the right places. I have shown in R2 and R3 that due to the resource curse, development is not achieved through resource extraction. The money from resource extraction doesn't even help the people in the country who desperately need it. I have also shown that it is very possible to prioritize environmental protection if it does come into conflict with resource extraction. The most beneficial option is the prioritization of environmental protection because the benefits (as I have said many times) can be felt by nearly everyone.
25% of developing country's wealth comes from the environment. Obviously, it is worth something. Look to my Guatemala example in R3. They lost literally 25% of their GDP due to environmental problems. These issues not only affect people, but affect developing nations wealth as well.
My opponent goes on to say this...
P1: Being green supports the endeavor of making money.
This debate is only over being "green" in relation to resource extraction. Being green supports the endeavor of making money while keeping the environment safe to get rid of the negative impacts that come from hurting the environment.
P2: Being green does not actually make money itself.
1/4 of all developing nations' wealth comes from the environment. In fact, environmental protection can enable citizens to farm. This will help make the impoverished money (as I showed in the case of Albania).
C1: Being green is not a priority to stimulating wealth.
It is really the only way that poor citizens can benefit.

My Arguments

China did not alleviate poverty through resource extraction.
My opponent completely misunderstood my argument. I agree that harvesting is resource extraction. However, China alleviated poverty with resource extraction methods that did not come into conflict with environmental protection. Therefore, China's growth in the past cannot be used as an example by my opponent.

Resource Preservation
I did not intend for this to be a major point in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address it. My opponent concedes that resources will inevitably run out. The point I am trying to make is that if developing countries are relying on the rapid extraction of nonrenewable resources, not only can this negatively impact the earth, but the country will lose the surplus wealth they once counted on when the resources run out. So, if environmental protection slightly slows down the extraction process, this is not a bad thing. The protection of the environment does give developing countries some wealth, and obviously the extraction of nonrenewable resources would not be abolished during the prioritization of resource extraction.

My Conclusion

1. Resource extraction (when in conflict with environmental protection) kills.

We can't afford to be "more green later" when lives are in question. Unclean water and air pollution (which I have shown can be a cause of resource extraction) kill thousands every year. Excessive deforestation will hurt the 1 billion that rely on forest based assets to live. The prioritization of environmental protection will ultimately strive to undo the damage done.
2. Development
Social development is achieved with environmental protection. As I showed in R2, the Millennium Development goals are best achieved through the prioritization of environmental protection. Economic development is also achieved because it positively impacts developing countries GDP. My opponent goes on and on about how developing countries do not have enough money to prioritize environmental protection, however he provides absolutely no examples of a developing country with such a problem. There is not one piece of evidence that has shown a developing country being negatively impacted by the prioritization of environmental protection when in conflict with resource extraction.
3. Corruption
Never once in this debate has my opponent touched on this point. The money from resource extraction is not going towards development or poverty alleviation. It is going towards the elite in society. The impact is: If the impoverished are to benefit, environmental protection should be prioritized to attempt to preserve clean water and air (which will save lives) and preserve forest based assets that people all around the world need to survive. Environmental protection is the one action that will help everyone, despite the effects of corruption.

For these reasons, vote pro.

Thank you to ChosenWolff for a great debate!! And thank you to anyone who reads this.
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Observation/Resolutions

This argument relies heavily on my opponents understanding that this debate is only over instances in where resource extraction is directly conflicting with environmental protection. This is not the resolution, which explicitly states that "Developing Countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction". This is outrageous, and a double fallacy. Has the opponent considered that there are other ways to protect the environment over than extracting resources? Which leaves this contention broken. If this were to be true, then the resolution would be advocating that all forms of environmental protection not correlating with resource extraction should also be prioritized. My opponent was not firmly clear on this, or said anything about it at all. None the less, my points still stand.

This debate also involves instances where environmental protection don't correlate with resource extraction, and vice versa. If the resolution followed this observation, it would say "In times where environmental protection and resource extraction come in conflict, resource extraction should come first.

II. OP's understanding of direct conflict

I am trying very hard to make my opponent understand, that all forms of resource extraction harm the environment. She seems to keep ignoring this, and engaging in guerrilla straw man in other places about this. Is there one form of resource extraction that doesn't harm the environment? Irrigation hurts the ground and roots, farming tires soil (farms eventually produce less over time), with modern day farming killing 10000's of bugs per farm that are integral in the ecosystem. Have people seen certain fungicides these days? Farming is one of the biggest causes of pollution. My opponent cannot continue to deny that there are two categories of resource extraction. Every resource hurts the environment, so even if my opponent were correct on her direct conflict rule, then she would be conceding several points she accused earlier.

Michigan is the resource drain, and my opponent will have trouble naming even one collected resource that doesn't harm the environment. I really want to know if she can, and since she hasn't, all of the points made on this subject should be disregarded. Even innocent things like fishing cause water pollution and hurt the ecosystem (By Darwin's theory, animals live in a connected food chain).

III. C1: Developing nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technology

My opponents one rebuttal is that the people will never see this money, as the elite hold it. This is unrelated and off topic. Her straw man covered up the fact that she conceded that the surplus wealth should be used on green technology. What she didn't answer, is how green technology can be bought without surplus wealth? She responded to the contention, sure, but she dropped the point. Green technology is more expensive than base technology, so you need to make money before it can be bought. This is simple economics.

Since this point is dropped, the bop is not filled, and my opponent should lose the debate from this alone. I do not write contentions just to see them straw manned and dropped. I have better things to do than engage in a debate with such silly argumentation. Which is why I recommend the audience to seriously consider the dropped point here when casting their votes.

IV. Corruption

I have been ignoring this argument due to a lack of gravity and weight, but since my opponent is insisting on bringing it up time after time, I will be forced to refute this. The point here is weak, and unrelated to the debate. Even if it held any weight at all, there is evidence more surplus is created than siphoned into slush accounts. Take Kenya for example They have the richest oil in the world, and the fourth largest reserves in the planet. It is also the most corrupt resource rich nation.

http://www.transparency.org...

Even though Kenya is the most corrupt nation with resource rich land, only 41% of value (forex) is being funneled through corrupt networks, which means 59% is still being created as surplus. My opponents case is debunk, by me proving worst case scenarios still work. Also, this argument has nothing to do with the resolution. Qatar and South Korea are examples of nations who've controlled corruption while still having resources. Corruption is a government policy issue that doesn't relate very well to the debate, and is also to big a problem to generalize.

V. C2: Concession (yay) on process and understanding of surplus

There are two things which pretty much seal this debate. One, is that the opposition outright conceded that you need to make money before you can protect the environment. This greatly damages her case. Then she moves on to claim that nations already have surplus. THIS IS FALSE!!!!. Developing nations almost never have surplus wealth. That is why they have budgets, and the government is trying to slowly grow them so they can just break even on new buys. The little money in stock they have, would be thrown into environmental protection, instead of the new harbor the citizens of Lwore have been waiting 8 years to see built. There are a couple common factors among third world nations....

1. Extreme Poverty
2. High Unemployment
3. Corruption/Infighting

The last of their concerns being environmental protection. The citizens don't need new solar panels. They want more jobs, social programs, and a lot more security. Ask a starving child what he wants most, and he'll say food, not a windmill. Its not developing nations that hurt the environment the most. It's industrialized ones. By having nations spend all their spare money on technology they can't afford, you are holding back their standard of living and development as a whole. These nations need to save every cents they have just to create the wealth they need to afford luxuries such as environmental protection.

VI. Another Concession (Yay) and restatements on where wealth is going

I would like to state once again, my opponent has conceded this contention. Before bringing up another concern. She says, once again, in a repetitive and rhetorical manner, that the people never see the wealth anyways. I would ask her, who is working the mines? Who's making these people rich? Even in societies where the money flows to the top, there is still a great deal of wealth going to the bottom. Not enough I grant you, but enough to justify this contention. Slowly overtime, nations standards of living are increasing, and more people are being lifted from poverty.



So my opponent is wrong. Not all money hits the top. Maybe once we have 23% less people living under 1.25$ a day, then we can talk, but my contention is not only true, but as you can see, it has already been tested. We can banter about how the elites take all are money as much as we want, but only a foolish economist would deny that we're seeing at least some of it being spread around. Which is where the BOP fails.

VII. Scarcity in resources

For the record, I can't concede an argument you didn't make. She straw manned her own argument. Also, this rebuttal, is actually just her restating the very argument I just refuted. Or in layman's terms, dropped my points again. I want a definite answer. If resources eventually run out, then will we make more money extracting them in lump sums, or slowly over time. In to which I argued that having money in circulation can create wealth without commodities, to which I got no response. Anyone macro economics would tell you the same things. Having 2 billion dollars now, could create 10 billion later. Without commodities even being a factor.

VIII. Conclusion

My opponent has not upheld her BOP. She put some strong points forward, but there were to many conceded contentions, dropped premises, logical fallacies , straw mans, among other things which make this a definite one sided win. The burden of proof is a serious thing, and should be considered to its fullest extent. My opponent conceded all three of my contentions, with her only defense being weak "buts...." which relied on X factors not involved in the debate.

A conceded point is a failed BOP. Much less having three concessions. Vote Con!

Sources

http://bauscharddebate.com...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I did report a vote to Airmax, with a huge analysis on every line of the vote. He told me not to question voters though :/
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Thanks for your vote of confidence in my reasoning faculties. =)
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
That makes sense. I do agree with your RFD though. At first, I felt like I didn't deserve to have conduct taken away from me but looking at how I delt with the farming arguments, it makes sense for me to lose the point.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"I was talking about the conflict over votes. That is true... debate itself is a conflict so perhaps I should have phrased that differently."

I invite conflict over my RFDs. I do it with the same intention I have in reading debates in the first place - to put a certain position (in the case of my own RFD my own position) through the crucible of criticism to determine validity.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"Sorry, but it's generally ill conduct to question voters. I sometimes do it if I feel something is a blatant vote bomb (I did in this debate), but that isn't even alright."

How I currently understand site conduct on "votebombing" is that it's poor conduct to accuse someone of votebombing. It's not poor conduct to challenge or be critical of the reasoning in the vote however. I do that all the time. I actually wish people would be more critical of my reasoning, but instead just get peevish, unsubstantiated one-liners from what I can only conclude are ill-mannered children that my 10-page analysis of their debate was a "vote-bomb".

If you truly think something is a votebomb, just report the vote, and if you choose, talk about WHY you think the vote is not valid. Just screaming "votebomb, votebomb!" is nothing but baseless ranting.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
I was talking about the conflict over votes. That is true... debate itself is a conflict so perhaps I should have phrased that differently.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"However, I will make sure not to do that in the future because the last thing I want is conflict."

lol, I will simply note that to debate a matter is to engage in a conflict, that to create a debating website is to invite this conflict, and that to voluntarily participate in debate is to enjoy this conflict. =)
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
I'm very much up for discussing any debates in which I leave an RFD - I consider the discussion many times to be more productive than the actual debate. If you like feel free to post a forum post about it and invite me to participate, I definitely will time allowing.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
I admitted at the end of the comment that I did some things wrong and that I have learned from my mistakes. I feel like arguing over RFD's is a lot more than simply saying something that contradicts what the RFD said. However, I will make sure not to do that in the future because the last thing I want is conflict.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Sorry, but it's generally ill conduct to question voters. I sometimes do it if I feel something is a blatant vote bomb (I did in this debate), but that isn't even alright. To say I accused you of something you didn't do is silly though. Did you or did you not make a statement contradictory to Wrichcriw's own? That is what constitutes an argument.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Given the massive amount of ground-shifting by PRO (especially glaring given the lack of any sort of structure in round #1), and the rather overwhelmingly convincing argumentation by CON, I am compelled to award conduct to CON, which is all I score debates by. Had I scored this normally, I would have scored arguments, conduct, and sources to CON, and S&G to PRO.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
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: comments
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is in error in several points. The resolution is making an on balance claim--it is not an absolute claim and it is abusive to expect Pro to defend it as such. Therefore, specific examples of how RE is better do not negate the resolution. Moreover, if you took time to read Pro's R1, you would see that the resolution does include the words "in conflict." Con, you cannot make a new argument in your last round. Your points against corruption are entirely new. This merits the loss of a conduct point as it is so blatantly unfair to Pro. Simply put, the Con case is insufficient to negate because it is so narrowly focused. Thus, Pro only needs to show ONE benefit to affirming to win. That benefit comes off of her corruption arguments. Args to Pro. Pro also had far more reliable sources, and integrated them more successfully and commonly into her arguments. Good debate!
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro main case was that going green is better for the economy and people in general than resource extraction. The central premise of Con's case was interesting in that it did not necessarily even try denying that, instead asserting that you need *money* to effectively go green, and that resource extraction is the best way to go about obtaining money. Pro did a really good job, and debunked pretty much all of Con's other arguments and examples, but ultimately, Con's point about money undermines Pro's case. Arguments to Con. Sources to Pro because Con barely used any and from much less reliable sites, too. Excellent debate!
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con's arguments are a little stronger in that developing countries often are not their own bosses, they are too dependent on resource extraction for for development to fund Environmental Protection, though Pro provided the best sources. I'm in the middle on this debate, it would be nice if developing countries could do as Pro states, but they are often tied over a barrel by corporations.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Fascinating, fascinating debate. Con showed that there are examples where there is no perfect solution to problems, that sometimes in order to lift millions out of poverty, you have to at times hurt the Earth. Yes, it's not an ideal solution, but these kinds of problems do exist. A similar example can be used with Nuclear energy. Current energy generation from Nuclear Power gives off dangerous wastes that currently has little use, but many experts on energy say that many nation's have to depend on this power supply simply because there aren't enough renewable energy suppliers out there to provide for energy demand. Still, nuclear energy creates dangerous wastes. I decided to make my vote a tie. Pro is correct to state that these types of investments are bad, because they come with serious costs; Con is correct in that these types of investments solve a painful issue (even if they create another problem). Ultimately these types of solutions can only be temporary fixes, though.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
debatabilityChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Will vote on this as soon as RFD is written, give me a day.