Instigator / Pro
7
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#118

Environmental Protection vs. Resource Extraction

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

--Topic--

Environmental protection ought to be prioritized over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.

--Definitions--

Prioritize: to treat one thing as more important than another
In conflict: implies a situation in which two or more competing interests clash
Ought: indicates moral desirability

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Admittedly, I'm a little short on time, so I won't be able to post an exhaustive vote like usual. In this case, however, I don't feel that's necessary.

The framework debate, almost entirely alone, decides the debate for me. Due to the lapse in R3 (I'm really not sure why Con chose to eschew that round almost entirely), Con didn't get an opportunity to address the framework arguments Pro presented in that same round. What comes in the following round is simply too little too late, and basically just involves Con referring back to his statements on consequentialism in R1. That's not enough, largely because Con doesn't ever take the time to spell out what he means by consequentialism, except to say that the ends should be preferred to the means, though he does not examine anywhere in the debate why that would be the case. Pro spells out much more clearly what consequentialism actually looks like, and explains how it's in conflict with other facets of Con's framework, which he also characterizes with more clarity than Con. Con puts some response on the latter in the final round, but it's late, and I have to disregard it. Pro is the only one that's doing any meaningful framework analysis beyond vague statements about what should be preferred, and since I can't nail down what Con's framework is and what I can nail down appears to be in conflict, I am forced to default to Pro's framework, which receives a lot more explanation and support.

That leaves us with the Land Ethic point, an argument that receives quite a bit of backing from Pro's monism contention, to which I receive very little response beyond some misrepresentations of what monism is. Pro's arguments on this front stand largely uncontested. The only point Con has that might function within this framework is the notion that harming the environment leads to more benefits for the environment later, but I see Pro effectively addressing that by pointing out the extinction problem (which provides a clear and impassable upper limit for human advancement, and thus limits the benefits we can provide to the environment) and, more importantly, the lack of clear means to prevent ecosystem/biosphere collapse, leaving nothing to save.

In terms of general feedback, I think Pro handled this pretty well on the whole, though I probably would have focused more on Con's notion that more tech = better environment. I'm surprised the issue of damage to the ozone layer (which seems impossible to repair), in particular, didn't come up. Still, I think you hit enough points, particularly on pollution and its shorter term effects, to challenge the notion that it's fundamentally beneficial.

Con, you were strangely both overly focused and overly scattered. You had a lot of points that you didn't spend any time supporting, just claiming you could support it. When you got into depth on an argument, you spent so much time there that you missed opportunities to address the arguments Pro was bringing to the table. You don't need to go into the kind of depth you did in many of your arguments, particularly if you just present some evidence. I would have loved to see a series of examples of how resource extraction has benefited the environment, and focusing more on how there are ongoing harms to the environment that only tech can fix (and how we're on our way to fixing those problems) really would have helped your case. I felt like the entire conversation regarding humans being natural was mainly an annoying distraction from a case that otherwise made some decent points. Even if I bought it, it was pretty clearly a Kritik, so I would have invalidated it anyway.