Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Thank you very much, Whiteflame, for the debate.
Live debate's a different ballgame and I still felt pretty off my game on this one. Enjoyed doing it!
Oh shit that reminds me I was gonna vote on this one. I'll see if I can get that done tonight but it may not happen
For some reason I always read pro's name as "Blamo-Monkey" as opposed to "Blah-Monkey," yet I suspect the second is closer to proper.
Also, listening to some of this, I realize how badly I'd get my ass kicked in a live debate!
I think I'll give it a watch, and vote, I'll probably be taking way too many notes for a live debate, lol
I can see how you'd take that perspective, though I won't give any specifics here, in case anyone else wants to vote.
also, I had more numbers from Pro (7% reduce GDP, hundreds of thousands dead from pollution, etc.) but like I said, all those are meaningless if you can't tell us how much we mitigate this number via environmental protection. Pro would have probably gained my vote if he gave me some clear examples of, suppose that environment protection countries have better economics overall, or less deaths overall. I know from personal research that the focus of "save the environment" can reduce the number of deaths, but blamonkey seems to focus more on the bad of extraction rather than the good of protection. That's why I felt weird how Pro had a lot of substance in his case, but not necessarily to vote for him. (Because status quo is likely the two are prioritized equally)
It's a really well-trod topic, so there are a lot of good points to be brought up for both sides. That being said, I took the side on this that I felt more closely aligned with. If I had been Pro, I probably would have gone heavy on environmental arguments and spent more time addressing the need for international efforts, but I knew from the moment we selected this that I would go for poverty. Strangely enough, I considered the Social Contract value for my side as well, did not expect that.
Blamonkey's argument about propping up corrupt regimes was not where I expected him to go, but I think that was tactical. The arguments on environmentalism run into their own problems, and if he had gone for more traditional arguments, that would have been a risk as well since I had prepared some rebuttals for those.
no problem. What's your personal thoughts on the topic? I realized Pro's "constructive" was slightly weird because it attacked con rather than supporting his side. Seemed powerful but I saw less connection to unique benefits of protection.
Appreciate you watching and taking the time to write an RFD, seldiora! I know it must have been a tough call.
Both pro and con use powerful impact based arguments clashing each other. This vote is extremely difficult because both had very good statistics and studies boasting against each other. (except Botswana from Con, what's up with that?)
Firstly, let's talk about corruption. I think the end result of this point is just insignificance overall. Pro needed to show that most countries were already corrupt, so that the result of not solving the problem is indeed as Con said -- it expedites the issue and destroys the economy within. But pro did no such job. He displayed the connection, but at the end I'm 99% sure he didn't make the connection that Con's plan would destroy due to corruption, but rather due to other reason. He merely said that con doesn't solve the problem. Con also says that if we reduce the poverty, this will loop back to resolving this argument. So this point negates out in my opinion (leaning con).
Secondly, the actual impact on people's health. I buy that the pollution is a long term impact that Con has a hard time solving in the long run. Pro's examples of developing countries such as US and others show that the resource extraction would likely go on for quite some. Con's only counter is going back to economics and pointing out that Pro's case is difficult to make. I see no commentary from Pro on how we will actually implement his plan of environmental protection. Con makes some good arguments about foreign dumping, but this seems insignificant relatively speaking. So this argument is slightly leaning pro, but it is difficult to say for sure.
Thirdly, let's talk about economic impacts. Con spends a ton of time arguing about poverty being more important than environment to resolve. I buy this argument due to its hefty impact. Under usual circumstances, the people's health is a no brainer that needs no thinking to. Pro no doubt knew that under a usual framework, he would have to devote no time to explaining why we have to save lives under the easy pollution. Yet at the same time, the big poverty issue is managed under a strong framework shift by con, and gone unnoticed by pro. Con sufficiently explains that saving people from being poor also counters the health argument, if only in a subtle way.
Pro thinks of that economic protection will loop back to economic boost. Con's case is easier here with talking about the poverty is resolved. I'm losing grasp on the "why" near the end, but the evidence is definitely established. Pro gives interesting ideas about the Dutch diseases, and though con refutes this nicely, I raised eyebrows at why he only cherry picked Botswana. As Pro notes, this does not apply to a lot of countries. So the economics seem to also be muddled overall.
This debate was kind of weird overall. Pro's case was shaped mostly as an attack over resource extraction rather than telling us exactly what we would gain by protecting the environment. Do we avoid the pollution merely because the developing countries would prioritize the protection? Can we save these lives? Pro infers so, but makes no clear connection. Yes, in Con's case we know we will likely lose these lives, but it's hard to say if the alternative means that the people's health will improve. Pro's case would greatly be helped by showing how much we can actually reduce deaths, rather than posing Con as "he kills this many people". At the very best, we can only expect the non-corrupt developing countries to thrive under democracy with environmental protection, looping back to resolve poverty somehow. Con reminds pro multiple times that he is not actually solving any problem, and pro makes no remarks about implementation problems. I almost voted tie (or even Pro) because of the establishment of environmental link to killing the poor, however, Con shows there's bigger problems to worry about. As such, I give the vote to con by a slight margin.
Con continues that people will trust the gov more as a result of reduction of poverty (~35:30), as well as the fact that even developed countries aren't doing a lot for environment protection. He also states that bringing in the countries for environment does not address the problem of poverty either and that Pro's benefits are not unique (~37:00). He repeats that the system will fail because you can't build up the green energy, and fails to address the foreign dumping and only depending on agriculture (~38:00). He also counters that the opportunity to improve is better than nothing at all (~39:00).
Pro concludes that Con will still only be trapped in poverty because of the pollution (~44:00). He notes that Botswana was a cherry pick and that most developing nations would not be able to transition to this green energy proposed. He goes back to despotism and says the problem is still unsolved and the poverty will remain. The fundamental rights are not upheld. Not to mention the GDP drop with climate change re-mentioned.
Pro tells us that we must look at benefits and exact impact. (~2:00) Pro tell us that the oil industry creates corrupt government (in a way, near ~3:00), and establishes poor democracy scores according to the dev. countries (~4:00), which I buy that the democracy can produce less corruption and problems (but not necessarily economically). He points out the problems with pollution along with diseases (~5:30).
Con's case is that resource extraction will help quality of life in poverty reduction (~14:00). He tells us about the severity of problem, in that it cuts life expectancy (~15:00), with similar disease problems as Pro. He adds on war problems, and distribution issues (~16:00), so tells us that poverty should be solved first. He tells us that the resources will connect to the needed economic growth (~17:30). I buy this as well. He quickly tells us how international laws overcome the individual's ideals (~18:30). He speaks that the block of projects prevent the poverty, which would lead to environment solving itself. He also points out that con case furthers the environmental protection in the long term. (~20:00) He concludes that Pro fails to address the big problems and doubling down on alleviating rather than solving problems.
Pro begins by saying Con's poverty framework fails itself. (~26:30) He says that the oil export depresses job opportunities, and that the Dutch disease means that only strong currency will allow the trading to work -- as mining is automated (~28:00). The resource extraction will not have big effect on employment (I don't think the point Con was trying to make, but a good point nevertheless). Pro notes that Con dropped the democracy point and that autocratic governments are inherently anti-poverty (~29:30). Pro notes that deforestation problems are still unique and lasting (~30:30).
Con refutes by saying that Pro won't be able to prevent the corrupted governments (34:30). He brings up Botswana, which reinforced the good government.
To be updated
RFD in comments.
a tough one to judge, but it came down to Pro's lack of clear constructive for unique *benefits* of protection and instead attacking the flaws of resource extraction. Good debate.