Tournament: ASU Southwest Champions | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memory is Failing me | Judge:
I affirm.
Obs1:  Halting resource extraction is environmental protection.
Therefore the standard is minimizing harm. Further prefer this standard because

1. Respect for the equality of persons mandates consequentialism. Cummiskey
   2. Consequentialism is the basis of all moral theories as it promotes general happiness, which is valued by all ethical systems. Beauchamp: 

Therefore, moral theories may have different standards of happiness, but their enforcement mechanisms all come down to maximizing happiness, which is consequentialism. 

Therefore, my first contention is that environmental protection ought to take precedence over resource extraction when the two are in conflict because resource extraction leads to civil war and increased violence.

Ross:  Civil war is a result of re
Ross 2: 

Ann Florini  oil wealth makes bad govnts in dev countries

My second contention is that civil war leads to terrorism.
STATHIS N. KALYVAS  :Civil war leads to state-provoked terrorism.

Renner:  sudan civil war lead to terror
  MICHAEL RENNER joined the Institute in 1987. He is a Senior Researcher and serves as the Project Director for Vital Signs. His research deals with peace, security, and disarmament issues, and focuses in particular on the linkages among environment, natural resources, and violent conflict. Michael is the author of nine previous Worldwatch Papers, including Ending Violent Conflict (April 1999) and Small Arms, Big Impact (October 1997). His 1996 book Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurity examined the ways in which resource scarcity can contribute to conflict.

Kitschlet: Middle east RE leads to terror

Sb: ability to destroy
Chuck Freilich 10 

Chuck Freilich 2 Armegeddon and the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism. Journal Article, InFocus, volume IV, issue 2
Summer 2010 http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/20262/armageddonandthethreatofnuclearterrorism.html

Even the use of a single nuclear weapon could potentially cause a full scale nuclear war which would end the human race.
Ross 03 

Carl Sagan 

Sagan furthers…

Carl Sagan 2, American astronomer and astrobiologist; Richard P. Turco, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Director of the UCLA Institute of the Environment, Journal of Peace Research  Vol. 30, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 369-373   
UNDERVIEW
Ethical agnosticism should lead us to default towards preventing extinction as a meta-constraint on all ethical theories. Since we presently lack definitive grounds for believing any particular moral theory, we should default to rules which maximize our ability to continue to engage in moral reasoning and chance of finding demonstrable moral truths. Extinction can function as an independent voter.
Bostrom :
And presume aff because 7 side bias and affirmative time constraints
Therefore, affirm.

Tournament: ASU Southwest Champions | Round: Octas | Opponent: Will Neibergall | Judge:
I negate.

The negative is advocating for preservation of the environment, but the best way to achieve that preservation is through resource extraction.  Both sides are advocating for the protection of the environment, but the neg refutes the concept of environmental protection.
First, I offer definitions:
Rational beings are defined as “having reason or understanding” . Plants and animals can express rational actions.
This is the central question behind a fascinating new book, “What a Plant Knows,” by Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University.

Peter singer: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer03.htm

Value: OOO
Do so by rejecting Anthro. Anthro is the idea that humans are the most important aspect of our universe. This leads to a lack of care for the wellbeing of plants and animals. Destruction of humans is beneficial with rejecting anthropocentrism because it results in better protection of the environment. There are more objects in the environment than there are with humans, with over 400 billion trees in the Amazon alone, therefore if humans are destroying an exponential amount of natural resources, destroying humans would save the most objects. Anthro is inherently discriminatory.
Penelope Smith, “Animal Communication Specialist”, no date, http://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.html

The standard is Maximizing Benefits.
Prefer this standard because

1. Respect for all things mandates consequentialism
    Cummiskey :

So if we adhere to OOO and think of all object on earth as equal. Then under consequentialism, humans ought to be destroyed in order to maintain the “most good”.
Therefore I contend that in order to preserve the planet, we ought to prioritize resource extraction. Vote neg because the neg is preserving the greatest amount of objects through continues resource extraction
As long as resource extraction and humans remain, we will destroy ourselves.
Monbiot, The Guardian, columnist 9 George Monbiot, has held visiting fellowships or
professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele
(politics), Oxford Brookes (planning), and East London (environmental science), 8-17-09, The
Guardian, “Is there any point in fighting to stave off industrial apocalypse?,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change

Humans are growing at a disproportional rate and as along as they are alive, will continue to destroy the planet.
Anne Ehrlich and Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology and Senior Research Scientist at Stanford,
1/9/13 (Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?,Proceedings of the Royal Society
Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280)

Both Monbiot and Ehrlich are telling you that resource extraction will lead to human extinction. This is beneficial. While the aff may say like RE bad bc extinction, this is coming from an anthro view which is inherently discriminatory. RE is good bc it leads to human extinction which will have the best benefit for the environment. Therefore, you’re negating because all humans and nonhumans are equal, therefore under consequentalism, humans need to die in order to maintain the “most good.” Resource extraction is the only way that we can directly destroy humans and maintain the environment.

Tournament: Practice | Round: 1 | Opponent: Unknown | Judge:
A: Is the Framework
First, prefer AC interps because the neg can always adapt to the affirmative but by the time the nc is read it is too late for the affirmative to go back and adapt to the negative.
Prefer a plan focus because:
a. Depth of the discussion. Plan focus maximizes depth of in round discussion, which fosters clash of argumentation. Plan focus generates better clash between arguments because the evidence must interact directly to either prove or disprove the policy. Res focus decreases clash because defending the whole res fosters shallow debates with the same arguments in every round. Depth and clash are most educational because they demonstrate how relevant arguments interact, which improves critical thinking. Clash and depth of argumentation is also fairer because responsive arguments minimize judge intervention that is forced by independent and unrelated offense.

b. Real world applicable. The best and most recent topic literature is grounded in real world examples of the resolution. Only plan focus grants either side access to this quality ground, and ground is key to fairness for both debaters. Further, application of real world decision-making allows us to relate the resolution to current events, which maximizes the educational benefit of debate. 

Strait and Wallace ’07 write
(L. Paul, USC and Brett, George Mason U., The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making, Policy Cures? Health Assistance to Africa, Debaters Research Guide, p. A2)

c. Breadth of the research. Plan focus increases breadth of research because debaters have to craft plans and answers to specific cases, which exposes them to a wider variety of arguments and is therefore more educational. Research benefits most from breadth because the literature base is wide and can be utilized with increased breadth of research. Breadth of research is better than breadth of discussion because in round discussion is severely limited by things like time constraints. The potential application of a wide variety of research leads to variety in debates, which is more educational than repeating debates with the same stock arguments again and again.

The standard is rejecting anthropocentrism. Anthro is the idea that humans are the most important aspect of our universe. This leads to a lack of care for the wellbeing of plants and animals.

Penelope Smith, “Animal Communication Specialist”, no date, http://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.html

Sowards :

In order to respect the other and adhere to this idea of rejecting anthropocentric behavior, we need to expand our discourse. Currently we separate humans from nature through our discourse that paints the picture of animals being brutish and humans being refined. In order to bridge this gap, we must expand our discourse to include animals by supporting our relationship with animals, namely orangutans.
B: Is the inherency
Prioritizing EP is the only way to decrease palm oil extraction.
Palm Oil is currently a predominant source of food and biofuel.
Richard Stone: 

C: Harms
Orangutans, an endangered species, live only in areas which happen to be subject to palm oil harvesting. This causes massive extinction. Noreen Parks :

Orangutans need a stable habitat in order to maintain life. Without orangutans, we lose our ability to relate to the rest of nature.
Sowards 2:

D: Is the plan text, I reserve the right to clarify.
Southeast Asian developing countries should prioritize environmental protection in order to create safer harvesting of Palm Oil in order to protect the orangutans.
E: Plan
Protecting orangutans is viable in Southeast Asia, legislators have already begun to take action.
Stone 2:

Parks 2:
 
This solves for the gap that would expand without orangutans.
Sowards 3: