The Instigator
DebateTroll
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Christopher_MS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when two ar

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 45286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DebateTroll

Con

Hey guys just want to practice for my class debate, just a novice. Thx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Getter- Jim Clyburn once said ""Environmental protection doesn"t happen in a vacuum. You can"t separate the impact on the environment from the impact of our families and communities.""
This is the truth and shows the problems of environmental protection.
Therefore, I firmly negate the resolution that developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when two are in conflict.
Definitions- I offer the following definition in support of my case. From the Oxford dictionary.
1.Developing countries- A poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially.
2.Prioritize- Designate or treat (something) as more important than other things
3.Environmental Protection- An organization that establishes rules and standards for protecting the environment.
4.Resource- A stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.
5.Extraction-The action of taking out something, especially using effort or force.
6.Conflict- a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.
My value for this round is Quality of Life. This is important because the greater it is the better your life is. This will be achieved through my value criterion, Progress. This criterion is important because without it, humans would not be as great as they are now.
My 1st contention is negating the resolution results in faster Progress.
Sub Point A- Resources help the economy more that it harms the environment.
Evidence- An article on Foreign Policy states Christa concludes that economies with greater resource wealth actually grew faster between 1970 and 2000 than resource-poor countries.
This shows there is economic gain with extraction that will help these poor countries progress to having better lives faster than countries without resources.
Sub point B- Resource extraction is needed in their everyday lives.
There is no way the environment can be protected without it infringing on what would be thought acceptable for the peoples way of life.
Evidence- An article by Huffington post states ""The t-shirt and jeans you are wearing cost the Earth 2200 gallons of water.""
- This is only for a shirt and pants of a single person and would be much worse for an entire nation"s clothing costs if environmental protection is prioritized. It will harm the way of life, people hold dearly, by increasing the prices of their necessities.
My 2nd Contention is progress leads of greater Quality of Life.
Brief Explanation- By using resources to their fullest, developing countries can progress into more comfortable livings.
Sub point A- Resources are needed in order for a country to progress and become developed.
Evidence- A section of the book Journal of Business Ethics. Volume 39 number 3 states ""Most recently resources have provided the basis for the three industrial revolutions that have led to modern economies of the developed world.""
Link- If it were not for these revolutions, life in America and many other places around the world would be nowhere nearly as developed as they are today.
Sub point B- Resources increase income and through that, lower the chances of a civil war.
Brief Explanation- The money gained from resource extraction increases income.
Evidence- On an article by the New York Times, states, ""We find that the direct effect of resource wealth (particularly the subset of mineral resource wealth) on income growth is positive and significant.""
Link- By increasing income, resources gained will, in turn, lower the chances of civil wars.
Conclusion-In conclusion, resource extraction is needed to increase the economy of these fighting nations. It will also move them toward industrialization which is needed for the people to have a normal life, and it will lower the chances of civil war, saving thousands of lives and the environment in the process.
Reinforce Importance of Value- Quality of life is important because the lower it is, the worse a person"s life will be.
Restate position in Debate- Therefore, I negate the resolution that developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when two are in conflict.
Christopher_MS

Pro

I agree with many of your points that developing countries need to develop however will it matter in 150 years if a country is developed when the air in this world is not even breathable? I believe resource extraction should only be allowed if the benefits of the resource extraction GREATLY outweigh the harm it would cause to the environment. I believe that resource extraction should be very carefully controlled until we can invent new methods of mining, drilling and logging that are less harmful to the environment.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateTroll

Con

DebateTroll forfeited this round.
Christopher_MS

Pro

Christopher_MS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateTroll

Con

DebateTroll forfeited this round.
Christopher_MS

Pro

Christopher_MS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.