The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

"In developing countries, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction wh

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,643 times Debate No: 44454
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I negate resolved: "In developing countries, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction when the two are in conflict."
When a country is developing it is in a state in which it, "[has] few industries" and many poor people who are unable to buy the things they need."1 Also, environmental protection can be defined as "prevention (avoidance) strategies to protect the environment from future damage or degradation; and control measures to restore and maintain environmental quality."2 Finally, resources can be defined as, "materials and capacities (as mineral deposits and waterpower) supplied by nature."3
The value of this debate is the Natural Function of Nature. In order to function properly, nature must be a fluctuating system containing all species and beings struggling to be named the top of the universal hierarchy. In order for nature to be in its most natural form, all beings must be on a playing field in which they are striving to be the best-without one group sitting dormant on top thereby sabotaging the system. Thus, in order to keep the system in an on-going flow the standard of this round must be Systematic Life.
Prefer this standard because it is the only way the natural function of nature can be derived from our current situation on Earth. Moral values are ideas conceptualized by man that restrain him from reaching his full potential. Nietzsche 1: "[W]e need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined [...] People have taken the value of these "values" as given, as factual, as beyond all questioning; up till now, nobody has had the remotest doubt or hesitation in placing higher value on the "good man" than on "the evil", higher value in the sense of advancement, benefit and prosperity [Gedeihlichkeit] for man in general (and this includes man"s future). What if the opposite were true? [...] So that morality itself were to blame if man, as species, [des Typus Mensch] never reached his highest potential power and splendour?"1 Without morality, mankind is able to strive for the top of the system as intended by nature. Yacasua "74: "Morals, as defined and practiced, may be said to stand in opposition to what has variously been described as instinct, nature, the law of the jungle and so on. For this reason some have regarded morals [are] unatural and as having no legitmite place in nature, while [some] have been equally convinced that morals are all that stand between man and the beasts, and that they are the essential means if man"s salvation. Inasmuch , therefore, as nature countenances no paradox it is evident that the ladder to be wrong. [No] animals - and certainly no mammals - are wholly devoid of either inherited or acquired rules of conduct."2 Barriers set up by man to represent the "inherent differences" between man and animal are mainly centered with this idea of morality. In disproving morality, we become aware that if all equals in the system are competitors to the throne and humans are part of this equal set, then humans are to fight just as animals alike. Thus, in proving morality false we can wrap our minds around the fact that according to what natural nature entails we as humans are not excused from the system and therefore cannot exist inactive above it. _______________________________________________________________________
1 Nietzsche"s Metaethical Stance, Nadeem J. Z. Hussain
2 L T. Yacasua, "The Phi Delta Kappan" vol . 55, no. 9 (May,1974) pp.608-610
The system does this for us; and while to most it seems rather unfair that it is mandatory to take part in the system, it is beneficial to our species in that we can develop and gain intellect. Hence, in order for humans to move forward we must be forced from our rest above the system. Nietzsche 2: "My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand [We must take a stand] beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath [ourselves]. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate: that there are altogether no moral facts. Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities. Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena"more precisely a misinterpretation. Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which ... "truth," ... designates all sorts of things which we today call "imaginings"."3 (TI "Improvers" 1)." In conjunction with the rejection of ideas of morality and inequality between animals and man, we must also reject any form of utilitarianism, for its importance is based solely on moral values, which have now been proven illegitimate. Nietzsche 3: "[Quite simply,] We need to strive to be more just in our evaluations of life and the living by, for example, thinking "beyond good and evil"."4 With morality, inequality, and utilitarianism out of the way, my standard is a prerequisite to all others, for it allows for the oscillations found in the natural state of nature as no other mechanism can.


I affirm the resolution:

The value is justice defined as giving each their due. Justice must recognize and provide for the capabilities of living organisms. Nussbaum writes:

The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22

“the dignity of a form of life that possesses both deep needs and abilities. is to take into account the rich plurality of activities that sentient beings need — all those that are required for a life with dignity. that it is a waste and a tragedy when a living creature has an innate capability for some functions that are evaluated as important and good, but never gets the opportunity to perform those functions. Failures to educate women, failures to promote adequate health care, failures to extend the freedoms of speech and conscience to all citizens — all those are treated as causing a kind of premature death”

Thus justice must account for the dignity of life forms and allow their capabilities to flourish. These capabilities include things like sensations, life, and bodily health. All capabilities are equal and trade off with one another. Only this approach to justice respects the unique capabilities of each individual species and subject. Nussbaum 2 writes:

The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22

“There is much to be learned from reflection on the continuum of life. Capacities do crisscross and overlap: A chimpanzee may have more capacity for empathy and perspectival thinking than a very young child, or than an older child with autism. And capacities that humans sometimes arrogantly claim for themselves alone are found very widely in nature. But it seems wrong to conclude from such facts that species membership is morally and politically irrelevant. A child with mental disabilities is actually very different from a chimpanzee, though in certain respects some of her capacities may be comparable. Such a child's life is difficult in a way that the life of a chimpanzee is not difficult: There is something blighted and disharmonious in her life, whereas the life of a chimpanzee may be perfectly flourishing”

Thus the criterion is respecting the capabilities of each individual. My contention is that justice must recognize the capabilities of animals.

Sub-point a: Animals have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish. Nussbaum 3 writes:

The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C , Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22

“The same attitude to natural powers that guides the approach in the case of human beings guides it in the case of nonhuman animals: Each form of life is worthy of respect, and it is a problem of justice when a creature does not have the opportunity to unfold its power … and to lead a life with dignity. The fact that so many animals never get to move around, enjoy the air, exchange affection with other members of their kind — all that is a waste and a tragedy, and it is not a life in keeping with the dignity of such creatures. … seeing our ethical duties to animals as direct, not indirect, and also in its starting point, a basic concern for sentient life, not just rational life it takes an interest not just in pleasure and pain, but in complex forms of life.”

Thus similar to humans animals can be influenced in positive and negative ways. Rollin writes:

Reasonable Partiality and Animal Ethics Bernard E. Rollin.Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1/2, Papers Presented at a Conferenceon Reasonable Partiality, (Amsterdam, October 2003) (Apr., 2005), pp. 105-121Published by: SpringerStable URL:

“any sentient or conscious being has states that matter to it in a positive or negative way - pleasure matters to an animal in a positive way, pain or fear in a negative way. [The Animal] can value what happens to it, it has intrinsic value. Given the logic of morality, we should extend our moral attention to those states that matter to it when our actions affect that being … not all of our moral attention focuses on reason Most of it focuses on feeling, on not hurting people physically or mentally, or helping them be happy or escape from suffering. So if human beings are ends in themselves, why not animals, since they too have feelings and goals that they value?”

The capabilites approach is not a prohibition on killing animals or using them at all but is rather a approach that ensures animal flourishing is calculated as well. Daws 2 writes:

Kami Daws. Food, Inc., the Capabilities Approach, and the Right to Healthful Food. Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Languages, Cultures, and World Affairs, College of Charleston Volume 9 (2010): 47-63 2010.

“there may be cases where the perceivable mistreatment of animals is potentially justifiable, such as the killing of animals for food and the experimentation on them for medical research Nussbaum never explicitly states the killing of animals for food is justifiable, she implies that it is acceptable as long as the slaughtering is humane and painless for the animals .. Nussbaum does argue “against killing at least the more complexly sentient animals for food” … while research that inflicts the risk of disease, pain, or premature death on animals is immoral, it is possible that research to promote human health and safety is acceptable if experimentation is absolutely necessary and is done humanely Nussbaum accepts human uses of animals as long as the treatment of them does not violate basic animal entitlements.”

And, resource extraction i.e. the Keystone XL Pipeline harms animals. The Center for Biological Diversity ( talks about the impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline and how it would put ten different endanagered species at risk of extinction. This is something the AC rejects. And the AC solves for these harms because we're not using the same methods as the NC, which perpetuate these harms, thus we protect animals.

Let's touch on the NC:

1. There's absolutely no impact coming off of his case. Even if you buy his framework there's no reason why that means you as a judge pull the trigger negative. I'm the only one with any kind of impact to even extend, so you're automatically defaulting affirmative.
2. TURN: AC best fulfills the NC framework since I'm keeping animals around so we can get this kind of competition and flucuation. Negating removes animal specieses from the picture, which breaks the natural flow of things. So even if you buy his framework, you vote aff.
3. I don't bite into the harms of the NC because I'm not advocating for a system of morality. The NC has no link into the AC, don't let him try to get some kind of impact that way.
4. Even if you buy the NC framework, he gives you no alternative. He's claiming that we need some way to critique the morality of the status quo but gives no solution to his perceived harms of the status quo. So even if you want to vote negative he gives you no way to solve for the harms he claims the AC has.

So, to conclude:

1. I'm giving you a clear line of logic in the AC. We ought to value animals. Resource extraction harms animals whereas protecting the environment doesn't. Thus, you affirm.
2. Even if you don't buy the AC, the NC isn't even a case. It has no link into the actual resolution, nor does it have a link into the AC since I'm not advocating for a system of morality. It has no way to solve for the harms it says the AC has, and has no impact to actually extend out as offense.
3. But even if you buy the NC, I best fulfill the NC since I keep more specieses around for increased competition and keep a more natural flow within the environment.

Debate Round No. 1


For some reason, my contention level was cut from my first round argument. For that I am sorry.
My first contention states that man must use resource extraction to help him gain access to the top of the system. Douglas Richards: "Nietzsche had glorified the concept of a superman. Not the Clark Kent variety, but a man whose sense of good and evil was
3 &4Nietzsche"s Metaethical Stance, Nadeem J. Z. Hussain
solely based on what would help him succeed or fail. Good was anything that would help him achieve his potential. Evil was anything that would hamper him. [Nietzsche wrote:] What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness."5 In extracting resources, mankind is thereby doing good. Resources provide him with undeniable economical benefits, which lead to scientific discovery and breakthroughs within the species. It is key that developing countries do not hold the species back, and support their own economies to result in their own breakthroughs. If other species and wildlife (be them plants or animals) hinder man"s success then they are on the bad side of the spectrum, and it is reasonable to conduct actions that result in the loss of these competitors.
My second contention states that the coming and going of mankind is beneficial. Nietzsche 4: "Man is a rope stretched between beast and Overman -- a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what is lovable in man is that he is an overture and a going-under."6 Being that man is "an overture", he will be followed by something greater-something more pure. Thus, the coming and going of man will not cause destruction to systematic life nor the natural state of nature.
Thus, I negate.
5 Wired, Douglas Richards, author degree in business administration from UChicago
6 Nietzsche"s Metaethical Stance, Nadeem J. Z. Hussain

Let's hit the AC:
First, my opponent's entire case is based on the idea that we must not rid the Earth of species; we need those species for competition. However, my opponent misses the point of this argument. First, morality is a misconception generated by man, and without it we are able to pursue our full potential as humans. Second, cross-supply contention one. Richards clearly explains that anything that hampers mans success is bad. Thus, we have the right to conduct actions that result in the loss of these competitors. Let me put it in perspective. Let's say that if I win this debate against my opponent I will receive access to power and thus power and success as a result of that power. By human nature (especially with morality out of the picture) it makes complete sense to pursue this power; further, it is my obligation as a competitor to do so. It is inherent that competitors will not (and should not) feel sympathy towards one another if they truly want to attain full success.
Thus, TURN 1:
In saving competitors my opponent is going against systematic life; therefore, my opponent's AC does not function under my framework.
Furthermore, their value of justice is clearly linked to my arguments against morality. Justice is heavily correlated with morality, so drop their value and look to mine. Also, in providing no standard my opponent concedes to mine. For their last speech they must tie into my framework for these reasons. If they do not, drop the debater.
My opponent also claims that my case doesn't solve for problems as the AC does, yet I clearly do. In going back to the basic natural function of nature, we are inherently doing good as nature intended. In implying that the man-made mechanisms of justice and morality are good we are making assumptions that could lead to a serious blow to mankind. Further, when my opponent attempts to claim that they "don't bite into the harms of the NC because I'm not advocating for a system of morality", do not allow the ballot to be altered. The link between justice and morality is clear-cut, as stated previously. Though they are related, there is a slight difference between morality and justice. Justice balances the rights of each individual. Morality dictates how individuals ought to conduct themselves. Morality may dictate you should give to the poor. Justice does not, because what is yours is not anyone else"s until freely given. My opponent is liable to pose this argument, however it makes no difference in the outcome of the round. Nietzsche blocks all man-made mechanisms that dictate the action of man. These systems are assertions made by man as an attempt to place him in a place of human-supremacy. However, when stripped down to the basics (i.e. The Lord of The Flies), morality and justice take no effect on his actions of competition and survival of the fittest.

Extend my first contention. This essentially blocks my opponents case: drop Rollin, Nussbaum, Daws 2, and the Center for Biological Diversity argument. The reason for the blocking and uprooting of my opponent's case is due to the fact that eliminating competitors is inherently good. It weeds out weaker competitors unworthy of the title hierarchy king. Through evolution and survival of the fittest, mankind as well as all other species will be forced into a state of evolutionary change through this systematic life.
Extend my second contention. This sheds light as to why it does not matter that species die off. If humans die as a result it is okay, for we will be replaced by something greater. Did dinosaurs have the internet? With millions-if not billions-of users participating in the spread of knowledge and education? The answer is no. And wouldn't you know it, they were followed by a group who does have these things. Through inductive reasoning in collaboration with Darwinian Evolution it is simple to deduct that man will be replaced by something greater, which is beneficial.
1) Through the content of my case it is clear that the entire AC is blocked.
2) My opponent is forced to use my framework due to their conceding of my standard as well as my four disprovals of their value.
3) I outweigh on timeframe. I do what is best for all species as a whole, avoiding human-supremacy and putting all animals on an equal playing field. Thus, I allow the most righteous species to be on top, man or not.
4) I outweigh on scope. In helping all species and nature itself I help all beings, while my opponent simply helps animals, while never abandoning human-supremacy as I do and therefore never fully freeing animals.
Good round (sorry about the contention mishap). *handshake*


My opponent just flat out lies and is highly abusive with his arguments, which at part of the reason you're affirming today.

First, off his "contentions mishap":

This is so unfairly abusive for him to save his contentional arguments to the very last round to post because it gives me far less time to respond to them. Don't let him get away with this because a) his case didn't even meet the full 8000 character limit, but rather only stopped at 5000+, which means he had plenty of space to add additional arguments to his case, and b) he specifically made this debate into a two round debate, whereas the default round setting is usually three. He chose this debate to be two rounds, therefore is forced to place new arguments in the last round on his own choosing. He could've made the debate longer but didn't, so don't let him get away with it.

But even if you do weigh his contentions, you can group them:

First, TURN: by using animals as a stepping stone for the advancement of mankind they open the door to the same systematic violations of rights and life that the NC inflicts onto animals. If the NC is true, man is next.

Rowlands writes:

Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 196

“It is impossible to view the world and everything in it primarily as a resource without this infecting the way we view each other. This is the logical culmination of the resource-based view of nature: humans are part of nature, and therefore humans are resources too. And whenever something—humans or otherwise—is viewed primarily a resource, things generally don’t go well for it.its implications for human beings, is exemplified in our treatment of animals. …They are things to be eaten, things to be experimented on, things to be stared at, hunted or killed for our entertainment.when you are talking about fundamental ways of conceptualizing and understanding the world, what goes around comes around. The instrumental view of animals necessarily infects our views of humans. … the dialectic by which the instrumental view of animals becomes transformed into an instrumental view of human beings, and the unfortunate consequences this transformation yields.”

Thus, it's actually impossible to negate under the NC framework because valuing resource extraction as a way to advance mankind espouses this resource mindset that labels everything as just something to be used and once we use up all other resources, mankind is the next to get used.

And, give me this argument because if you're going to be weighing his contentions that were posted unfairly at the very end of the debate, it's only fair that I be granted the same right as well.

But then secondly, even if you buy that we ought to be using animals, you can cross-apply the conceded Daws 2 evidence that says that the AC doesn't prohibit using animals, rather that we just make sure that we respect their rights and ability to flourish as well. This means, at best, the NC offense is non-unique because I can get the same things as he can. The only difference is that I'm not killing off different specieses, which means I can keep advancing human-kind while ensuring that different animal specieses can keep competing for the top of the hierarchy. He tries to extend out his first contention as a block to this but his first contention isn't even responsive to this, don't let him get out of this.

And, onto his second contention:

1. There's no warrant to this argument at all.
2. There's no warrant for the analytic under the argument that says "the coming and going of man will not cause destruction to systematic life nor the natural state of nature". If anything, cross apply Rowlands that shows exactly how this is GOING to happen.

Now onto his responses to the AC:

1. I'm not misunderstanding the argument at all. My opponent is arguing for, as he specifically states in his case, "a fluctuating system containing all species and beings struggling to be named the top of the universal hierarchy.". By putting resource extraction first, we're eliminating certain specieses from being able to compete for the top of the unviersal hierarchy, which violates his framework. This is coming out of the Center for Biological Diversity evidence in my case. This means that a) my opponent's framework is turned on itself, and b) even if you want to vote off of his framework, you still sign the ballot aff because I'm the only one keeping specieses around to keep competing, which is the entire point of the NC framework.

2. I don't care that morality is some misconception of man, I don't link into morality. My opponent responds to this by saying that justice is heavily correlated with morality, but a) he never gives a warrant for how this is true, and b) his line of reasoning is entirely circular anyway. His line of reasoning is that what is just is moral, and the action is moral because it corresponds with the principles of justice, which is 100% circular. My value still comes first. It also doesn't help that he goes on to admit that justice and morality have differences anyway, so there's no link.

3. My opponent blatantly lies that I don't provide a standard. I clearly state in my case, "Thus the criterion is respecting the capabilities of each individual.". Just because he doesn't want to respond to it doesn't mean it's not there. But even if you do drop it, the AC still better fulfills the NC framework anyway so I still have the vote anyway. And, there's no reason to drop me if I don't link to his case because I'm giving clear offense off of the AC still. Winning on the NC is just icing on the cake.

4. My opponent tries to claim that he solves for the harms of the AC by going back to the basic natural function of nature, but a) that's exactly what's making him bite into the harms in the first place. He's trying to use animals and nature to try to restore some kind of quasi-balance, when his actions only ruin the balance and directly link him into the harms of the AC. He's not getting out of this. But also b) he doesn't even do what he claims he wants to do. By killing off different animal specieses we upset the balance that was maintained with the specieses alive in the first place. Thus by negating he's always going to be unable to fulfill his own framework.

So at the end of the day this debate is super simple:

1. You don't give the NC their contentions because they unfairly posted it at the last possible second when they had every option available to them not to take this abusive action. This means that the NC has no impact or actual link into the resolution.

2. Even if you are giving the NC their contentional arguments, I'm refuting each of them and still proving how the NC doesn't actually make things better for man overall.

3. By eliminating specieses, it becomes impossible to return nature to it's natural balance, therfore by protecting animals the AC is always going to be doing the NC better than the negative. This means that even if you buy his case, you still vote aff.

4. There's no responses to any of my arguments coming off of the AC contentions. All he does is make hasty cross-applications from his contentinos to try and pre-empt out of the debate, but a) he's not responding to the warrants in any of my cards, meaning that the actual arguments I'm making are dropped, b) I'm already turning and refuting his contentions, so there's no pre-empt possible, and c) you aren't weighing his contentions anyway, so my contentions stand.

5. The NC can't link into the AC because they're killing off animals and disrespecting their rights to flourish. And since he hsa no link into his case, and he has no link into the AC, he literally has no offense coming off of the round. There's literally not a place you can sign the ballot neg.

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con as Instigator had the burden of proof. His first round was irrelevant to the resolution, arguing that morality generally prevented "man from reaching his full potential." but here was no iargument that environmental protection was immoral or that developing natural resources necessarily was necessarily in conflict. Oil drilling platforms form artificial reefs; dams can benefit wildlife, offsets may more than compensate for development damage. All con had to do was give some examples of people facing starvation could avoid it by money gained through resource extraction. Pro's only example was the preposterous one of the Keystone Pipeline, not in a developing country and hence inapplicable to the debate. However, Pro did point that con had not shown damage or given a reason justifying his case. The debate overburden with debate jargon seemingly designed to make it incomprehensible to most readers. Pro loses conduct for saying that Con lied; Con may have overlooked the item.
Vote Placed by YYW 6 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Almost everything CON wrote was so far beyond the scope of the resolution, that I even considered awarding PRO the conduct point just because he actually argued for what he was supposed to argue for. It is very much going to be in CON's best interest to coherently understand the resolution before debating on this in the future. Sources to PRO because CON's were irrelevant and therefore unreliable for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.