The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

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: 4/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,133 times Debate No: 52601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




Resolved: Prioritizing Environmental protection over economic development is in the best interest of the people of India

My Standard Boilerplate

Round 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.
Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.
Round 3- Free choice.
Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only.
Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.

Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.

Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss.

The BOP is shared.


- Prioritizing: To designate as more important.

- Economic development: Pertaining to the overall economic health of the country. GDP, GDP per Capita, Unemployment, Labor Participation, etc.

- Environmental Protection: Pertaining to the maintenance, protection, and rebuilding of the natural environment of India.

- Best Interest: the action that is in the best interest will yield the highest net benefits

- People of India: The citizens of the country of India.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Pros Case

(A) India Shows Immediate potential for Massive Growth

“‘India Shining’ has been the unofficial slogan for India since the turn of the 21st century. India averaged 8% annual GDP growth in the three years before the recent global financial crisis. Armed with population strength of more than a billion people, India is now the 11th largest economy in the world. Internationally, India has also become an important actor. On paper, India’s potential is immense, with approximately 500 million people between the ages of 18-25; its best years seem to be ahead.” (1)

Focusing on the economy will yield great results, as India shows great potential for becoming an industrial powerhouse. With economic development prioritized, the GDP of India will likely skyrocket. According to the World Bank, the Indian annual GDP growth rate averages 3.2%. That is a full percentage point ahead of the US, and even the World average.

(B) Increased Economic Development Would Reduce Poverty

According to India’s Planning Commission, rapid economic growth has helped reduce the poverty rate from 37.2% in 2005 to 29.8% in 2010. That is 40 million less people in the absolute number of the country’s poor. Per capita income doubled during those five years, as well.

Increasing the GDP (the first and foremost product of focusing on economic development) increases GDP per capita. The more money the country has overall, the less people the country has who are impoverished.

India has the largest population of poverty stricken citizens in the world. Action must be taken to reduce the number of poor in India. The only way to reduce the poverty rate is to focus on developing the country, reducing wealth inequality, and bringing more money into the country. With development prioritized, Indian poor will be reduced. The World Bank reports, “The reforms India started in 1991 hold the promise of considerable improvements in the living standards of the country's 300 million poor. During the last few decades, India's inward-looking and public sector driven industrialization strategy led to rates of growth and poverty reduction far more modestly than those witnessed elsewhere in the world, particularly in South East Asia. The economy has responded well to the reforms, and the government has made it an explicit objective to accelerate the development of the country's human resources. The last five years have shown the rates of growth that India could achieve with market oriented development policies and a better integration with the world economy.”

Development prioritization is already working for India to alleviate the poor. Why stop it?

(C) Increased Development Would Reduce the Crime Rate

The UN and the World Bank both consider Crime a massive hindrance of overall development. With development prioritized, the Indian people would have a chance to fight the crime rate. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, India’s crime rate has been on an overall steady rise since the 1950s. Prioritizing development fights this.

As we have previously stated, the number of impoverished indians is incredibly high. This directly contributes to the crime rate. Development prioritization therefore fights the crime rate twofold. First, fighting it directly (through legislation) in order to increase development. Second, indirect reduction through a reduced number of impoverished people. The crime rate would likely begin to drop, yet another benefit for the people of India garnered through Economic Development.

(D) Increased Development Would Increase the Standard of Living

According to the World Bank, the Indian GDP per capita is about $3,876. This is incredibly low, especially when compared to the United States GDP per Capita, which is over $50,000! The people of India would see a massive increase in their standard of living if development was prioritized.

Indian people will live in much better conditions with a stronger economy. With the GDP per capita raised, Indians will be able to afford more luxuries, and live their lives more comfortably. The human development index is the most effective method of gauging the standard of living. India ranks 136th on this index. (United Nations Development Program)

(E) A Stronger Economy Would Allow India to Afford Better Environmental Protection in the Long Run

In the long run, development first would ultimately benefit the environment more than protection first. With a strong economy, and a high GDP, India could more easily afford to protect their environment. Furthermore, they would be able to afford better protection, as they would have more money available for spending.

(F) Economic Development Does Not Always Come at the Cost of the Environment

The Economy of a country can easily be developed without having to deteriorate the environment severely. Every day, new technologies emerge that will allow India to improve its economy without significantly damaging its environment. (Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Biodegradable materials). As environmentally friendly products are becoming more and more popular, India could easily develop their economy through these products, thus protecting their environment simultaneously.

(G) Economic Development Would Benefit Human Rights

Social and Economic Development go hand in hand. With a thriving economy, human rights in India will flourish. Developing the economy of india will require improvements in education, and worker training, in order to improve human capital. With improved education, and worker skill, workers rights will be improved in India. Thus improving human rights. Economic development and social development together will allow India to become more progressive, and more democratic.

(H) Development Would Increase India’s Presence In the World

As the ‘I’ in the BRICS nations,India is a very important leader in developing countries. Indian culture encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.. Indian citizens are going on to become world business leaders. With a stronger economy, the People of india will have a much stronger voice in the global economy.

With a larger economy, India would have a more influential voice in the world, and would be less threatened militarily by countries such as Pakistan. A stronger economy would also allow India to afford a larger, more powerful military.

With more world influence, India would be able to protect itself more effectively, and “get it’s way” in world affairs more often.



Observation One: Arguments pertaining to how putting one side over the other allows better access to the other side in the future should not be allowed in the debate for two reasons:

First, it's insanely abusive against me because it strategically gives him more ground to work with while skewing my available argument ground. If he's allowed to argue that focusing on economic growth leads to better environmental protection later on, it lets him just co-opt any kind of standard impacts I could run as "Oh I can do this too just later down the road", while I can't do the same thing. This unfairly skews the debate in his favor by giving him access to both sides of the flow while only "defending" one side, while I'm forced to either a) just give him my offensive impacts or b) run theory arguments that are likely to go over most of the heads of the voters on this site, meaning I'd still lose anyway. And fairness is important because without fairness the debate would just devolve into a "who can employ the most underhanded tactics" contest, which would destroy any kind of in-round or out-of-round value this debate could have.

Second, because it kills any kind of actual debate. Allowing him to say "oh I'll do that too later on, we should just get a good economy first" lets him take any kind of affirmative argument and co-opt it to work in his favor, as well, which ends any kind of discussion and kills the educational content of this debate. And educational content is important to debate because without it there's no actual point to this debate. If neither of us are learning anything and none of the voters are learning anything then there's literally no point to having this debate.

This has two implications on the debate.

One, any arguments about how economic development can lead to environmental protection ought to be dropped and not evaluated.

Two, the con must stick to solely advancing economic development, just as I will be solely defending environmental protection.

A sub point – Links:

The negative stands on the foundation of economic development. The belief of “mo’ money, no problems” is what drives him. However this is a view that puts humans as superior to everything else on earth, and uses nature as a stepping stool for our selfish desires. This is the basis of Anthropocentrism. Devall[1]:

“The dominant paradigm in North America [is] … the belief that … the primary goal of .. nation-states … should be to … increase production of commodities and satisfy material wants … Nature, in this paradigm, is only a storehouse of resources which should be “developed” to satisfy … demands … The goal of persons is personal satisfaction …”

Even the word “environment” is anthropocentric. It implies that nature is just a backdrop for humans – this attitude is the cause of the ecological crisis. Curry[2]:

“environment … as a word prejudges the issues in a particularly unfortunate way, insofar as it implies that the natural world is essentially merely a surround, backdrop, or setting for the main attraction: us. But that very attitude is integral to the present crisis. For this reason, I prefer ecology …”

B sub point – Impacts:

First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior. Donovan[3]:

“Through … exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals. Humans … justify … exploitation of other species by categorizing “animals” as inferior and therefore rightfully subjugated while categorizing humans as superior … So … universal is the false dichotomy … that symbolically associating women with “animal” assists in their oppression. Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior”

Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior. DeMello[4]:

“we are rapidly becoming a throwaway culture, in which … animals are tossed away … It … should serve as a warning … of people who so easily … inflict cruelty … psychologists have for years known of the connection between the abuse of animals and violence toward humans. Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documented… The evidence is not …anecdotal; numerous studies … have shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commit … violent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence, … violence toward animals … needs to be taken seriously”

Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life. Smith[5]:

“The anthropocentric view … echoes the way … many humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different …. Regarding others as … substandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty or elimination … Too often people label what they don’t understand as inferior, … Anthropocentrism does not … bridge the artificial gap it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from … their environment. … causing the disintegration of health and harmony for all … human life.”

C sub point – Alternative:

Reject the negative case and adopt a policy of deep ecology. Zimmerman[6]:

“Deep ecology is … a … insight into the interrelatedness of all … life on Earth … anthropocentrism – … is a misguided way of seeing things. … an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life … Instead of regarding humans as … unique… they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. …. Instead of identifying with our egos … we would … identify with … the whole ecosphere. … We … wouldn’t … damage the planet, just as you wouldn’t cut off your own finger.”

And this solves for the ecological problems of today. Affirming makes the world a better place. Katz[7]:

“’anthropocentric’ ethical systems fail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism … system. The natural world –natural entities and natural ecological systems—deserves our moral consideration as part of the interdependent community of line on Earth. … The basis of a moral justification of environmental policy is that we have ethical obligations to the natural world …”


[1] Devall, Bill. "The Deep Ecology Movement." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[2] Patrick Curry, BA in psychology, September 3, 2001 (University of California at Santa Cruz, The Campaign for Political Ecology) <Murray>

[3] Carol J Adams, Josephine Donovan, Animals & Women Access via: Google-Print 1995 p. 355

[4] DeMello, Margo. "Cruelty to Animals a Warning of Possible Violence to Come." SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.

[5] Smith 02 [Penelope Smith, Animal Talk, “Anthropocentrism”, 2002. Accessed January 24, 2014. Retrieved online at]

[6] Zimmerman, Martin E. "Introduction to Deep Ecology." Context Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[7] Eric Katz, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997 [Nature As Subject : Human Obligation and Natural Community] <murray>

Debate Round No. 2



"Arguments pertaining to how putting one side over the other allows better access to the other side in the future should not be allowed in the debate"

These arguments are absolutely valid as per the rules set out in the Round 1 of this debate; the same rules that my opponent agreed to and did not seek to amend.

My opponent argues that because he cannot formulate a legitimate rebuttal against this argument, it is therefore invalid. I am very familiar with this topic, and I know for a fact that there are arguments to be made against this point that are perfectly legitimate and effective. Just because my opponent cannot think of these arguments himself does not mean that he enjoys the right to disregard this argument.

Allow me to establish an ethical value from which to argue:

Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life.

All arguments made by the Con will fit this value. The people of India are sapient human beings, and therefore benefitting them benefits sapient species, and works in favor of the ethical value set forth by Con.

"A sub point"

The con is willing to grant that the pros position asserts that humans are inherently superior to the environment. The con argues, for the sake of practicality and pragmatism, humans and or sapient species are inherently of a higher desireablility than other lifeforms.

"B sub point
First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior."

The con is willing to cede that the subjegation of non-sapient animals is a result, however, the idea that women will be subjugated is a gross use of slippery slope logical fallacy.

Con asserts this:

1) Sapient species are inherently superior to other forms of life, and therefore of a higher desirability
2) Women are humans.
3) Humans are a sapient species.
4) Therefore, women are superior, and shall not be subjugated.

The only way for this point to be proved even remotely would be for the pro to take the position that women can be empirically proved to be a non-sapient species, which I would like to see.

"Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior."

If my opponent means to imply that "those" are human beings, again I assert that the values argued by the Con are violated by this. My opponent is only making use of gross slippery slope fallacy, and appeals to authority. Just because humans will exploit non-sapient species for their own advancement, does not mean that they will begin executing sapient species en-masse. My opponent totally fails to create a logical cause-effect relationship between the con stance and the outcomes he has elucidated.

"Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life."

My opponents point again is no more than slippery slope alongside an appeal to authority. My opponent has chopped up quotes from his sources to exaggerate the impacts he has asserted, and again, provided no logical connection between the Cons ethical value, and the outcomes he has provided.

Summary of Sub-point B Rebuttal

This is all textbook slippery slope.

The point created by pro here can be summarized as this.

1. Con argues in favor of Q (strawman fallacy)
2. Q always results in X, Y, and Z, (slippery slope fallacy) according to Dr. Jon Doe (Appeal to authority)
3. Therefore, Con is not providing a desirable case.

The pros argument up to this point is obviously totally illogical.

Pros Case, and the Resolution

My opponent is arguing that all of Cons case are examples of "anthropocentrism" and then goes on to argue why anthropocentrism is undesirable (which I have rebutted).

But this argument isn't valid in the first place.

Anthropocentric is defined by merriam-webster as follows: considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe.

Now let's look at the resolution.

"Resolved: Prioritizing Environmental protection over economic development is in the best interest of the people of India"

Remember, in the R1 definitions my opponent accepted, the people was defined as follows:

"People of India: The citizens of the country of India."

Therefore, all arguments must be made in the best interests of the people of India. The plants and animals of India are not citizens. Therefore, all valid arguments will take a stance in favor of anthropocentricism.


My opponents argument is absolutely and totally invalid, as it does not argue in the best interests of the people of India, as that is an inherently anthropocentric stance, and my opponent is arguing against anthropocentrism.

Furthermore, I have totally and fully rebutted every aspect of my opponents argument.



Group all of his arguments together:

First: AC impacts will always come first. These anthropocentric arguments limit the scope of our ethical discussion. We need to expand our sights and consider the entirety of the problem if we’re to find any solution at all. Katz and Oechsli[8]:

“Our complaint is not merely with the difficulties of performing utility calculations. The deeper issue is the anthropocentric frameworklimits ethical discussions. The primary concern for human interests … creates an irreconcilable conflict between two goods that are…advocated by anthropocentric policies … the ecosystem which preserves … and the economic use of the land … We are faced with …a conflict between a long-term support … and short-term usable goods. This conflict cannot be resolved unless we expand the framework of discussion beyond the limits of anthropocentric … reasoning”

Second: TURN: Negating actually doesn’t help developing countries that much, if at all. It just spreads the gains out to the rest of the world and leaves the third world with the tab to pay. Katz and Oechsli 2:

“Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preserving … the … rain forest, are spread out … across the entire human race, while the costs … are borne … by … local human populations. Development of the rain forest … provides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding that … Third World countries limit development … violates basic … notions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for the … world’s … use of natural resources.”

Third: He has absolutely zero solvency to any of his claims. All of his claims talk about how economic development could lead to x or could possibly lead to y, but he's not providing any kind of warrant or analysis about how negating the resolution WILL do what he's saying it will. Until he provides some king of warrant for why economic development actually reaches the impacts he says they will, he has no actual offense in this debate.

Fourth: Almost none of his contentions even have warrants to them, either. The only one that does have a warrant to it is his first argument, and that's only saying that India is in a place where it could grow, which doesn't mean economic development at all. He hasn't provided any kind of analysis or empirical evidence that says what he's arguing is true at all, and until he does there's no reason to give his arguments any kind of weight.

But, off of his A point:

He's not doing enough work to show that negating actually will lead to this growth. All his argument is saying is that India is in a position where it has the potential to grow in GDP, but doesn't say how focusing on economic development will actually cause that growth.

Then, group his E and F points, which are basically advocating for sustainable development:

First: “Sustainable development” is an anthropocentric attempt to evade natural limits on growth – this contributes to a global ecological meltdown. Irvine[9]:

“The realities of life on a finite planet suggest that … sustainable development is indeed the last refuge of humanism since it represents the final attempt to evade the limits to growth. But it is doomed to be dashed on the rocks of ecological decline. The only way to avoid terrible consequences of ecological meltdown … is to start putting the Earth first.”

Second: The idea of “Sustainable” exploitation of resources is simply a smokescreen to justify ecological destruction. CPE[10]:

sustainable development … is all too frequently hijacked and erected as a smokescreen behind which to carry on business as usual in the form of unsustainable growth. Even amongst the genuinely well-intentioned, disappointingly few seem to have grasped the true implications of sustainability. There is a widespread misconception that a few add-on pollution controls plus a small increase in efficiency are all that is necessary to safeguard the future.”

Lets go to my side of the flow now. Off of my observation:

First: There's literally no rule stated above that allows him to co-opt all of my offense.

Second: That's actually not my response at all. My arguments, since he's apparently not reading them correctly, are two-fold: one, that this kind of argument unfairly skews the available ground to make positions and cases off of, which harms the fairness of the debate, and fairness is important because the function of the ballot that voters vote on is to vote for the better debater but that’s fundamentally impossible if one side is skewed. Two, there's no case position I can take that is outside of his ability to co-opt it under the idea that "we can do economic development now and focus on the environment later", which kills any kind of discussion we could have on the topic, which harms the educational value of the debate, and the educational value is important because it's what gives this debate out-of-round value. In short, I'm saying your argument is abusive, and should be dropped.

His only response to my observation is, as I just showed, non-responsive, so extend out my observation as unrefuted to. Force him to defend only economic development.

Pro then concedes to the anthropocentrism by arguing that humans are inherently superior but never warrants this kind of claim at all, rather just asserts it.

Then, his only response to my b-sub point is that I've committed the slippery-slope fallacy, copy-pasted to each card I used. However:

1. The warrants coming out of Donovan are clear that the logic used behind persecuting animals has applied and is being applied to women, meaning that this subjugation does exist and it's not the slippery-slope fallacy.
2. The warrants coming out of DeMello are clear that those are persecuting and being violent to animals are more likely to also be violent to humans as well. He apparently missed this whole part: "Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documentedThe evidence is notanecdotal; numerous studieshave shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commitviolent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence,"

3. The warrants coming out of Smith are clear that the mindset of viewing others as inferior validates and has been used to justify the complete elimination of their life.

Not only have all of these warrants gone unresponded to, but we can just look back at history to show how this anthropocentric logic has actually played out. It's the same mindset that we used against the Indians to justify the Trail of Tears[11], it's the same logic we used against women in the mid 1900's to justify denying them rights, it's the same logic we used against African Americans to justify enslaving them and forming massive lynch mobs to kill them, and it's the same logic the Nazis used against the Jews to kill off millions of their people. My arguments aren't the slippery-slope fallacy, they have happened and will continue to happen under this antropocentric mindset that my opponent is endorsing and advocating for.

Then my opponent argues that the resolution is inherently anthropocentric and I'm not arguing for the best interest of the people of India.

1. What the resolution looks like or not is irrelevant toward my burdens. My burden, as explicitly stated by the resolution, is to advocate prioritizing environmental protection, which I'm doing through my case.
2. Unless mass subjugation, mass murder, and eventual extinction is within the best interest of the people of India, I'm pretty sure my case is in their best interest.

To summarize all the responses thus far:

1. Nothing in my opponents case shows why we should actually prioritize economic development. He has all these nice little arguments that say that x could happen, or India looks really promising to have y happen, but never explains how priotizing economic development will actually reach that.
2. Force my opponent to just advocate for economic growth, as allowing him to take both sides is entirely unfair and abusive.
3. I'm not commiting the slippery slope fallacy, as the warrants in my cards are clear and, more importantly, not responded to, and I'm also showing historical precedence to show how the logic behind my case isn't the slippery slope fallacy.

And, to expand upon the impacts of anthropocentrism:

The anthropocentric idea that non-humans do not have intrinsic value (which is what my opponent is advocating) is the root justification for genocide and oppression within the human world. D'amato and Chopra[12]:

“Throughout history, the denial that other persons – outsiders, minority groups – as well as other animals, have a consciousness equivalent to our own has been the foundational philosophy for genocide and enslavement. This kind of denial of humanity to minority groups is the clearest form of inhumanity. The base evil of genocide, torture, or enslavement of minority or defenseless groups is matched only by the pseudo-rationalization that the victims are less than human. … Darwin saw clearly the empathic connection between opposition to slavery and opposition to cruelty to animals. … The mind set that exults in the … “sports” hunting of endangered wildlife species overlaps with the mind set that accepts genocide of “inferior” human being.”

Sources (cont):

[8] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
[9] Irvine, member of the Campaign for Political Ecology, 2001 [September 5, “Sustainable Development – The Last Refuge of Humanism?”] <murray>
[10] The Campaign for Political Ecology, September 30, 2001 [“Sustainable development”,] <Murray>
[12] D’amato and Chopra 1991 (The American Journal International Law, 85 A.J.I.L. 21, Anthony, member of the board of Editors of the Journal, and Sudhir, staff attorney for the EPA)

Debate Round No. 3


Deep Ecology, Anthropocentrism, and Con's Case

My opponents case now rests entirely on the concept that Anthropocentrism is a valid point on which to affirm the resolution. Therefore, if the Con sufficiently proves that "Deep ecology" is not in the best interest of the people of india, and that the value set forth by Con is in the best itnerest of the people of India, then Con has won this debate, and you must vote con.

Con Values =/= Anthropocentrism

First, I would like to clarify that the Con is NOT arguing in favor of "anthropocentrism" as the Pro as defined it. Pro seeks to contend that I assert that Non-human species have no intrinsic value. This is not true.

The Con value has been established as such "Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life."

This does not imply that non-sapient species lack intrinsic value, it just means that sapient species are of a higher intrinsic value.

Con's Values are superior than "Deep Ecology"

Deep ecology simply is not the value that is in the best interest of the people of india. As was stated in the round 1 rules that the Pro accepted, "Best Interest: the action that is in the best interest will yield the highest net benefits"

"Deep Ecology" will not yield the highest net benefits. Con's value gives the People of India higher intrinsic value than their environment, and therefore gives them a net benefit.

Deep ecology argues that human life is of equal value to all other forms of life, but this is simply not a practical philosophy to hold. Humans must consume either plants or animals in order to survive, and justifying this action implicitly gives humans a higher intrinsic value.

Here are two scenarios, under the two proposed value systems.

Example 1: "Deep Ecology"

A flock of 10 chickens and a young Indian boy are trapped under some rocks. A passerby realizes that he can either A) save the boy, or B) save the entire flock of 10 chickens. Under the proposed value each of the chickens has equal intrinsic value as the boy, and therefore the passerby saves the chickens.

Was this outcome of the greatest interest to the indian people? No. The chickens were the only things that benefitted, and they are not defined as "the people of India."

Example 2: Con's values

Take the same scenario, but this time, the man saves the young boy. This action WAS in the best interest of the people of india present in the situation, because the indian boy survived.

We can see, that because "Deep Ecology" lowers the intrinsic value of the Indian people relative to the rest of life on Earth, any philosophy of "Deep Ecology" CANNOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA.

Therefore, on this point alone, you should have more than enough reason to cast a vote for the negative.

The negative outcomes of Anthropocentrism, are not present in the Con Values

As I have stated, the value I have asserted is very different from "Anthropocentrism." The negative outcomes that could befall the people of India that my opponent has loosely stated will occur would NOT occur under the Con values. Genocide of any sapient race, or the oppression of any sapient race goes against the con value.


Pros case is non-compatible with the resolution, and is in no way a legitimate basis for affirmation of the resolution.

Pros Case

The vast majority of Pro's case is now totally dismantled. To further illustrate my point though, I will again remind the readers and voters of two key points to keep in mind regarding Pros Case

1. Pros Case is an Argument from authority, without logical connection

Pro has cited a handful of writers and philosphers that claim that many negative outcomes will result from "anthropocentrism" (I have shown the difference between this and my value), and expects readers to accept these claims as truth. The fact is, that there is no logical connection elucidated by my opponent to show that these outcomes will truly result from "anthropocentrism" or similar doctrines.

Furthermore, historically speaking, the human race has been pursuing practices of "anthropocentrism" for a very long time, and although there have been a select few negative outcomes, the human race as a whole has only seen (on average) an improvement in the standard of living. Humanity must exploit other forms of life in order to improve the standard of living. There is simply no way to progress without the exploitation of other life forms.

If we look at historical examples of civilizations that practiced doctrines akin to "deep ecology" we can see that these societies were typically barbaric, and lived in very poor standards of living without much scientific progression ( in the case of the native North Americans).

Cons Case

My case has provided many net benefits for the people of India. My argument isn't that certain outcomes "might" happen, it is that these outcomes "will" happen. My opponent asks me to clearly outline a specific plan as to how indias economy will be developed, but that is not a requirement for this debate.

My opponent attempts to wave away many of my contentions without giving them much addressing. I would like to forward these points across the flow.

Addressing the argument summary

"1. Nothing in my opponents case shows why we should actually prioritize economic development. He has all these nice little arguments that say that x could happen, or India looks really promising to have y happen, but never explains how priotizing economic development will actually reach that."

This is merely a strawman. My argument shows the logical connection between development and benefits. I have clearly stated this connection. If my opponent failed to read that part of my argument, then that is his problem, not mine.

"2. Force my opponent to just advocate for economic growth, as allowing him to take both sides is entirely unfair and abusive."

Again, the rules stated in round 1 were precise and clear. My opponent should have realized that the resolution only meant to discuss whether or not environmental protection should be prioritized, not whether or not economic development should have 100% focus. My opponent wishes to trap me into an impossible position. The resolution is clear. Pro must argue that E.P. must be given priority over E.D. while con must only argue against this. Therefore, equating E.P. and E.D. is a perfectly valid position for the Con to take.

"3. I'm not commiting the slippery slope fallacy, as the warrants in my cards are clear and, more importantly, not responded to, and I'm also showing historical precedence to show how the logic behind my case isn't the slippery slope fallacy. "

Saying that you are not committing slippery slope doesn't mean that you aren't. I have addressed the lack of connection between your points and impacts.


Pro argues for deep ecology, and Con proves that it is simply not compatible with the resolution at hand.

Con argues for economic development under the Con Value set forth, and clearly illustrates how the people of India will benefit.

Therefore, I urge that the judges VOTE CON!


Con's Being Anthropocentric:

This is the shortest part: He says he's not being anthropocentric, then says his "value" as con is "Sapient species are inherently superior to other species of life.", which is the de facto definition of antropocentrism. So he either contradicts himself super badly, or he links into the harms of my case.

Deep Ecology is Great:

Con essentially restates the same points as he did last round, with the exception of making a really skewed, just not very good analogy that relies on utilitarian logic to even begin to kind of make sense, which is something I pointed out to be the cause of a lot of our problems figuring out the situation to begin with (see Katz and Oechsli 1). He's still stuck in this narrowminded way of thinking that pits the two against them, which prevents us from expanding our mindset and considering all the options to solve this problem without relying on conventional modes of thought.

Con leads to the harms of the AC:

All he's really doing is that by saying he doesn't endorse genocide that his arguments won't lead to it. It doesn't matter if you don't want it, what I'm arguing is that your arguments not only justify it, but will also lead to it in the future, whether you want it to or not. Just plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "I won't hurt people, I won't hurt people" doesn't make your arguments any better. You actually have to, y'know, respond to my arguments to be disproving them rather than just saying "I won't do it" when I'm arguing all the reasons why your arguments will.

Moreover, he never responds to the D'amato and Chopra evidence I cited last round that shows the exact warrants as to where anthropocentrism leads to things like discrimination and genocide.

My case actually affirms the resolution:

He literally just repeats himself almost copy-paste what he said from the last round, so I'll repeat as well: I have to argue why we should value environmental protection over economic development. If I'm arguing that by not valuing environmental protection we're being anthropocentric, which leads to subjugation, genocide, and eventual extinction, it's certainly not in the best interest of India to negate at that point. He's not responding to any of this.

My Case has warrants, actually:

He repeats the same argument from authority without logical connection, then doesn't respond to the part where I cite all the warrants coming from my cards and then also provide additional historical context that proves the analytical warrants that my cards state have and will happen. So I don't really know what to do here.

He also says that we've made progress being anthropocentric, which is entirely false. He has no evidence to prove that our advancement as a species is due to being anthropocentric. This is a blatant unwarranted assertion on his part. There's absolutely no warrant for why advancing requires exploiting others, rather than working in tandem with them so that both can improve rather than just one. There's no reason to opt for a parasitic relationship when a symbiotic relationship is possible. And just because a society is in a worse spot than we are, that doesn't justify us exploiting them.

Con's Case doesn't really prove anything:

He says that his arguments aren't about what "might" happen, but rather what "will" happen, but this is blatantly untrue. Look back at the actual case he wrote. There's so many "India has the potential to x" or "India would have the chance to y" in his case that there's no actual certainty to anything. It's all "might be's" with no actual warrant for why those outcomes "will" happen. I never asked him to provide a specific plan-text, all I asked him was to provide warrants for his arguments...

Moreover, I actually did address his contentions, in the very top part of my rebuttal last round...especially the Katz and Oechsli 2 card which explains how negating doesn't actually improve anything for Third World counties (of which India is one). And he didn't respond to it...awkward...

He also never responded to the Irvine or CPE I cited last round that shows his advocacy of essentially "sustainable growth" doesn't actually work and just makes the situation worse...

I'm gonna direct quote this next part because I don't have a good way to tagline this:

"This is merely a strawman. ... then that is his problem, not mine."

1. That's not even what a strawman is.
2. But even if it was, I'm not strawmanning you. Your arguments are literally saying "x could happen if we y" but you're not showing how x WILL lead to y, despite my repeated calls for you to show this.

"Again, the rules stated in round 1 ... economic development should have 100% focus."

1. Again, there's no rule in round one that lets you co-opt any kind of offensive argument I could make.
2. You still haven't even attempted to respond to my arguments as for why your rules suck.
3. You're still not understanding the basis of my argument, even though I've repeatedly spent time trying to clarify it to you. So once more: You're saying that the rules and the resolution allow you to advocate for defending doing both environmental protection and economic development. I'm saying that rule sucks and harms debate by harming both fairness and educational values in the debate, and have explained why both of those values are important to not harm. Therefore, the rule should be dropped and you should have to defend economic development over environmental protection.

"My opponent wishes to trap me into an impossible position. ... perfectly valid position for the Con to take."

1. It's clearly a possible position, because that's what your case argues, unless you're saying all the warrants in your cards are crap and aren't actually true.
2. I think this is where you're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that it isn't a valid position to take. I'm saying that it's an abusive position to take and that taking this position harms debate as a practice, thus you shouldn't be allowed to take it.

"Saying that you are not committing slippery slope ... lack of connection between your points and impacts."

No you haven't. All you've said so far is that you're not being anthropocentric (then setting the overarching advocacy of your case as the de facto definition of what anthropocentrism is), and that you don't want to commit genocide (without responding to the litany of cards and warrants as to why your arguments are going to). All you've literally done is said I'm not doing it, then ignored the plethora of times that I did and pretended like they never existed.


In short, because this is the last round we can make rebuttals in without making new arguments in the final round, I want to touch on all the arguments my opponent has dropped, just so he can't be cheap and try to respond to them in the final round. Don't let him make new responses to these in the next round beacause he's had his chances to respond to them and didn't, which is a clear drop.

To start with, he never places a response on the reasons why his advocacy of doing both EP and ED harms debate and, thus, shouldn't be a position he should be allowed to take. This is the observation from my case.

He never responds to the alternative I provide, saying that deep ecology solves for the problems with anthropocentrism. That means that if you buy he's being anthropocentric, then you instantly affirm because I'm fixing all the problems that come apriori to his economic impacts.

He never responds to Katz and Oechsli 1, which argues why my impacts function apriori to his impacts.

He never responds to Katz and Oechsli 2, which explains why even if we were to negate, we wouldn't be helping third world countries (i.e. India) at all, but we'd actually still be hurting them. This means that even if you don't buy my case, you still affirm because going off of his arguments don't actually help India, but actually hurts them, making his case not in the best interests of the people of India.

He never responds to the Irvine or the CPE cards, which explain how his case not only proves he's being anthropocentric harder, but shows how it actually only makes the situation worse as a whole. This means that no matter what you're affirming today because even if you buy his impacts, he's commiting worse harms to get those impacts, which means I'm outweighing.

And he never responds to D'amato and Chopra which explains exactly how arguing what Con is arguing justifies and leads to things like subjugation and genocide. And this is crucial because since he never responds to this, I'm winning on my case as well show you how he's causing all the harms of the AC, and if I'm doing that I win before you even look to his side of the debate.

And, don't let him just say I'm commiting the argument form authority because I'm actually not. It may look like I'm just saying "x says this so it's true", but that ignores the actual lines of logic and reasoning the cards cite, which is what I'm advocating for. He's not actually responding to any of the warrants that my arguments cite and just trying to get out of having to respond to them by saying "Argument from Authority". Don't let him get away with it and punish him for trying to do it because he's dropped all the warrants in my arguments because of it.

To summarize:

He's being anthropocentric, which leads to things like subjugation of minorities, genocide and eventual extinction, which not only is not in the best interest of India, but it outweighs his impacts. He never responds to the evidence that explains how he is, so I'm winning there and you can vote aff there. But even if you don't buy my case, he never responds to any of the arguments I place against his case that show how his case not only won't work, but actually makes things worse, which means you affirm there as well.
Debate Round No. 4


tylergraham95 forfeited this round.


Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 7 years ago
No one voted on this D:
Posted by tylergraham95 7 years ago
I am sorry for forfeiting the final round. I have overloaded my schedule, and I did not set aside proper time for this debate.

I would like to apologize to Zaradi in specific for not giving this debate the proper attention that it warranted.

Please vote for the Pro, Zaradi.
Posted by Zaradi 7 years ago
Is it bad that this debate feels a lot like the me v. jifpop debate? I feel like it is.
Posted by jaykat81 7 years ago
I'm currently doing this topic in my debate class for our upcoming mock tournament. I Just wanted to say that I am a huge fan of both of you. Both of you have elaborated on some very well written and thought out points. Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.

Keep up the great work,
Posted by Zaradi 7 years ago
Since I had 3 characters left in my last round, and thus no room to post cat pictures:
Posted by tylergraham95 7 years ago
Don't take it personally. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just trying to make my argument more credible than yours as much as possible, as is the goal of the debate.

You know I <3 you Zaradi.
Posted by Zaradi 7 years ago
I'm not gonna touch on the "My opponent has chopped up quotes from his sources to exaggerate the impacts he has asserted" to avoid another conduct debate like the one I had with Jifpop, but I'm actually really offended that you think I'd intentionally miscut cards.
Posted by tylergraham95 7 years ago
If you want to post pictures of cats you may.
Posted by tylergraham95 7 years ago
It's free choice. If you want to respond to my responses you may.
Posted by Zaradi 7 years ago
Am I allowed to respond to your responses or do I have to ignore them?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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