Tournament: VBT and Sunvite | Round: 1 | Opponent: All Aff Rounds | Judge: All Aff Rounds
The first principle of ethics is to do “good.” This is the starting point of all ethical theories. Aquinas,
St. Thomas Aquinas.  Summa Theologica.  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm 1265-1274.
Now a certain order …  as something to be done or avoided.

Ethical evaluations are predicated on particular conceptions of well-being for distinct living things. Foot
Foot, Philippa. Natural Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. 19 January 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198235089.001.0001
This was the method of derivation  …  in the case of all living things.

“Good” is dependent upon the ends of the entity which are determined by inescapable constitutive features of the entity.  Boyle and Lavin
Matthew Boyle and Douglas Lavin, “Goodness and Desire” in S. Tenenbaum, ed., Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good Oxford University Press 2010.
Judgments ascribing goal-directed self movement …  these ends than it can cease to be itself.

And eudaimonia is a sufficient good in itself.O’Neill 1 paraphrases Aristotle  
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
Aristotle claims that eudaimonia, … something common which corresponds to a single idea.

A notion of good allows for us to come to the conclusion that there are values outside of human experience.  O’Neill
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
Consider the gardener’s use of …  I will follow Von Wright in terming the ‘goods of X’.3

This means that a notion of the good is not dependent upon human reference but exists objectively in nature. O’Neill 3
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
The terms ‘good’ … biological contexts does tell for objectivism.

Such a theory also entails that the ecology itself can relate to fundamental values.  O’Neill 4
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
This passage conflates two …  they have their own life.35 

And even if we only regard human goods as relevant, concern for the environment allows for human flourishing in the first place.  O’Neill 5
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
A second possible bridge between … that question in chapters 5 and 9.

Our sense of personal identity is tied to projects which persist across time.  Therefore we have duties to future members of our community.  O’Neill 6
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
Such a sense of identity …  I return in chapter 10.  

And it is the corrupt view of resource extraction influenced by the market that harms our ability to flourish in the now and causes disregard for the environment.  O’Neill 7
John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1
The answer is that, until recently, … tied to past and future.  

And this sort of view point of our community is a constitutive feature of human flourishing.  Haste:
Communitarianism and the Social Construction of Morality

Helen Haste, Ph.D. 1998.  http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/haste.html
Communitarian thinkers start …  needed for effective performance of those responsibilities.

And this co-opts your other ethical theories because it implies there is no method for formulating those beliefs independent of our thriving in a particular moral community.  

Underview

1. The values in environmental dilemmas are incommensurable so a cost-benefit analysis is unfeasible. O’Neill 8
   John O’Neill.  “ECOLOGY, POLICYAND POLITICS.” Edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library.  1993. http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:n3zZqVT9XVUJ:scholar.google.com/+Ecology,+Policy+and+Politicsandhl=enandas_sdt=0,44andas_vis=1

Another major problem … a price on environmental goods.

Tournament: TOC | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge:
All offensive arguments must be both impact and link turnable.

The affirmative may not read theory in the 1ar.

Theory interpretations may not be phrased conditionally.  To clarify, you cannot say debaters may or may not do something if something else is the case.

Debaters may not read counter-interpretations to theory interpretations if they also make “I meet’s” which contradict the counter-interpretation.

Debaters must read a counter-interpretation in response to a theory shell if they generate offense on the standards of that theory shell.

Debaters may not argue that the spirit of the interpretations should be evaluated rather than the text of the interpretation on questions of whether or not their opponents meet their interp.

If a debater reads a theory shell, the shell must be positively worded.

Debaters must disclose all broken theory and topicality interpretations on the Jan Feb topic before round one of the 2014 TOC.

The affirmative must specify a country or group of countries in an explicit text delineated from the rest of the case at the 2014 TOC.

If the affirmative does not specify a mechanism by which environmental protection is prioritized over resource extraction then the negative may not specify a mechanism by which resource extraction is prioritized over environmental protection.

Debaters may not apply framework or philosophical arguments made on the substantive layer of a round to the theoretical layer of a round.

Debaters must read the text of their interpretations in cross-examination and give their opponents a chance to comply or conflict.

The negative must read an advocacy text if the affirmative reads and advocacy text.

The negative must not read an advocacy text if the negative doesn’t read an advocacy text.

The negative may not read a counter-plan.

The negative may not read a conditional counterplan.

The negative may not read a dispositional counterplan.

If the negative reads a counterplan it must be unconditional.

The affirmative may not sever out of any part of their plan text.

The affirmative may not sever out of their framework.

The affirmative may not trigger presumption in the 1ar.

The affirmative may not have presumption triggers in the AC.

The negative may not contest that the affirmative gets presumption ground.

Debaters may not claim presumption ground.

The negative may not read skepticism.

The negative may not read theory in the 2nr.

The negative must defend a prohibition on the resolutional action.

The negative must defend an obligation to prioritize resource extraction over environmental protection at the 2014 TOC.

Debaters may not claim permissibility ground.

Debaters may not claim skepticism ground.

Debaters may not have conditional standards embedded within their frameworks.
Debaters must flash their opponent everything they read, email it, or hand a paper copy to them.

Debaters may not attempt to be paperless if it takes up more than 30 seconds of time between speeches.

The negative debater must concede to the affirmative framework if that framework is fair.

The negative debater must concede to the affirmative’s paradigm for debate if that paradigm is fair.

The affirmative may not read AEC.

The affirmative may not read AFC.

If the affirmative reads AEC, the affirmative must disclose on the wiki both the fact that they are reading AEC and the affirmative framework.

If the affirmative reads AFC, the affirmative must disclose on the wiki both the fact that they are reading AEC and the paradigm of debate the affirmative defends.

The affirmative may not read a plant text.

The affirmative may not read a plan text.

The affirmative may not specify a developing country on the 2014 TOC topic.
 
The affirmative may not specify a mechanism for prioritizing environmental protection over resource extraction.

The affirmative may not specify a resource. 

If affirmative offense is not specific to a type of resource negative offense must not be specific to a type of resource. 

If the affirmative justifies an RVI for the aff they must concede that the negative gets an RVI as well.

Debaters may not play any prerecorded material during their speeches.
If debaters read theory interps in the AC, they must read a voter, whether theory is a reason to drop the argument or the debater, and delineate the interpretation from the rest of the case by spacing or bolding.

Debaters may not read that all negative interpretations are counter-interpretations to implicit affirmative interpretations if they do not concede in cross-examination to give the negative an RVI.

Aff must defend resource extraction over environmental protection.

Aff must concede to JP.