Tournament: NDCA AFF | Round: Octas | Opponent: TBA | Judge: TBA
Vote aff. if I win a counter interp or meet the interp  13-7 skew. default reasonability for solely the aff.
 debaters must abide by NFL rules which is the strongest link to fairness: the NFL rules define Lincoln Douglas and thus create the most predictable interpretation which is the most critical to follow coming into round because otherwise the activity is meaningless: this also means that debaters cannot falsify evidence.  
Also permissibility flowing aff is key: 

I will accept any well-known dictionary definition of environmental protection and/or resource extraction.  My only tenants is the following: humans are part of the environment.

Resource extraction neglects future generation as a core of its tenants and hence is focused only short term goals and hence falls short of long term oversight. 

RSR:
Religious Studies Revelation 2011
Utilitarianism is a ...topic is unhelpful. 

Resource extraction can be used for nefarious purposes, ie the extraction of uranium to build a rogue nuclear bomb.  

First, uniqueness is that uranium mining worldwide hurts the environment.  
Thorpe ‘08:
Extracting a disaster December 2008 5th David Thorpe
The problem is...every single year.

North Korea is mining uranium now for its bombs:
FAS:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/ Maintained by Steven Aftergood and Hans M. Kristensen Updated November 16, 2006
North Korea maintains ...for this reactor.

Nuclear weapons increase chance of war due to state irrationality
Krieger 2K:
THE IRRATIONALITY OF DETERRENCE: A MODERN ZEN KOANby David Krieger 2000 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Even more detrimental ...concept of deterrence.

Tournament: NDCA Neg stuff | Round: Octas | Opponent: Akhil | Judge: TBA
Harvard NC
I negate.
Ethical theories are constrained by the actor because different actors possess different capabilities and duties; for instance, if I am being mugged, I am owed a different due from a policeman that I am from an old lady. The resolution specifies developing countries, so the actor is the state. All states share a common interest- to increase their relative standing among their peers, Mearsheimer gives three warrants:
The False Promise of International Institutions, John J. Mearsheimer, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3. (Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 5-49.
“First, states in ... more secure it is.”

Thus the standard is respecting state’s right to relatively further itself. The NC comes first because it’s the only theory specific to developing countries. Also, the standard is rights based, so it evaluates means, not ends. For instance, if a thief, who was bigger and stronger than me, tried to steal my money, I would still have a right to resist, even if my odds of succeeding are low and I would have gotten more hurt during the struggle.

One cannot expect an agent to be obligated to do an action if the agent didn’t have reasonable foresight to take the action.  For instance, I cannot be held accountable for missing the game winning shot if the ball was passed to me with only half a second left.  Equally, my argument is that states only have the reasonable foresight to make actions that are consistent with political realism because A) it is impossible for a state to be able to grasp ethical implications outside their own personal obligations as states B) a state can only have the foresight of protecting its own existence because no state has the ability to have foresight of a cosmopolitan future.  

Furthermore, only the NC framework applies since it takes into account the context of an action. If I was for instance to state that I stole money from someone in winning a bet in Poker, that is ok, because the form of Poker makes that permissible.  
And the state cannot function upon obligations sourced from the rational will, which offsets the AC framework:
1) The state has no mind so it cannot unify reason.  Even if all the policy makers agree on something, they are not unifying their reason to think since they do not act as one mind but rather pluralistic states of reasoning that end up by chance on one consensus.
2) The state is identified as a political construct, not an individual construct.  For instance just because a car is made up of mainly metal doesn’t mean a car behaves the same way that metal behaves because we identify a car as a vehicle of transport while the metal as a mineral.  Hence the NC is the most contextual to obligations of states opposed to individual obligations of the rational will.  
I contend that resource extraction is an integral part of state self-interest.
First, resource protection is specific to the state extracting it whereas environmental protection benefits the world at large. For instance, if Saudi Arabia were to extract oil, they would be the sole proprietors of that resource, meaning they could leverage it to fulfill national interests. However, the same cannot be said for environmental protection which is a global endeavor. If a country developed a solution for global warming and eradicated it, they could not selectively leverage their solution so that only certain countries feel the effect of global warming and others don’t. Every other country would just free- ride. This also proves that saying environmental protection is key to sustainability doesn’t turn; if everyone gets the benefit, then there is no relative benefit to states. States would prefer a system where they benefit less, but more so relative to other states than to operate under absolute standards.
Also, unlike citizens and states, there is no actor to govern states. Each states arbitrates its own interest, Owens:
Editorial May 2003 by Mackubin T. Owens International Anarchy
“Since there is no common superior to the states that make up the international system, each state is necessarily the arbiter of its own security needs. In the jargon of international relations theory, the international arena is said to be a "self-help" system. Self-help may include anything from building up military forces and preemptive war to forming alliances and/or relying on collective/cooperative institutions such as the United Nations.”
Second, most of the emissions actually come from developed countries; according to the New Ecologist:
The World's Biggest Polluters October 15th 2009
“Australians now emit 20.58 tons of CO2 per person annually, whereas Americans emit 19.78 tons, almost a 4 difference. Canada meanwhile emits 18.81 tons per person. In sharp contrast, the emerging markets of China and India only emit 4.5 and 1.16 tons per person annually, respectively.”
Thus, it is nonsensical to ask developing countries to prioritize environmental protection because they were not the ones causally responsible for bringing it about.

Third, resources have empirically decided the fate of empires, Reed:
Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002
“Resource extraction industries are not only as old as human civilization itself, but are also a key is constitutive of our history. The significance of metals in human (pre-)history is most clearly reflected in our designation of early historical epochs (e.g., copper age, bronze age, iron age). In ancient times, the ability to extract and process key metals determined the fate of empires. In more recent times, other resources (viz., coal and oil) have provided the basis for industrial revolution).”
Finally, states operate in the now, it doesn’t matter how much better the future will be if the state is not there to enjoy it. If they emphasize long term, they will open themselves up to abuse in short term by stronger states who will just co-opt their long term benefits. The AC is futile because states who prioritize the environment will be overtaken by stronger states who have resources who will just use their untapped land for additional resources.

Overview to the AC framework
1) In order for morality to have meaning it has to achieve something, so we should adopt systems that agents would follow. Otherwise, everyone would ignore it and it’d be a pointless concept. Only my framework solves because states would have no interest in abstract ethics that do not further their goals.
2) The fundamental core of morality is it’s agents; without agents a guide to action is pointless because there’s no one to carry out the act. Thus, the NC comes first because it directly speaks to self-preservation.
3) The reason we adopt moral systems for humans and not animals is because humans have the capacity to rationally think about these concepts. But if human rationality is the basis for morality, then morality must respect rationality or it’d be self-undermining. Only the NC respects rationality because it analyzes how states are actually motivated to act, rather than appeal to an ideal.

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}

REALISM NC

First, resources the backbone of the environment, Reed 1:
Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002
“Non-renewable resources have long played a key role in the development of human civilization. Most recently, they have provided the basis for the three industrial revolutions that have led to the modern economies of the developing world.”

 Second, increasing extraction is economically key because it achieves economics of scale, Reed 2:
Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002
“On the technological front, key developments in the extraction and processing of resources had tremendous effects on the supply side of REIs. In the case of oil, the introduction of drilling techniques enabled the exploitation of subterranean reserves, while and new large refineries allow for economies of scale and combined with advances in transportation to allow oil to be moved over long distances. Similar changes in extraction and refining processes in the mining industry allowed for the exploitation of lower grade ores. Changes in technology also had demand side effects. Some of these effects arose from the rise of new industries (e.g., the demand for copper in the electricity industry and later the development of the automobile industry), while others were related to supply side changes themselves, which stimulated new uses and the search for new markets.” 

 In order for economies of scale to be maintained, production must be maintained or increased. However, the aff. inherently reduces it through increased emphasis on environmental protection. Thus, industries will shut down because they will not be able to cover large fixed costs.

Third, is gold mining, Demand is extremely high now, Oliphant:

Oliphant 2013(Randal Oliphant- Chairman of the World Gold Council. “The direct economic impact of gold”. PWC. January 2013)

This is a time of change for the entire gold industry. The mining sector is facing a barrage of converging challenges; increasing costs, ever higher expectations from a wide range of stakeholders and a gold price which could call in to question the viability of some projects and lead to a contraction in supply. Demand however is increasing, fuelled by; expanding middle classes in Asia, diversification of reserve assets by central banks and a growing desire for physical gold amongst many Western savers. In the midst of all this, and at a time when the ‘extractive’ industries are being widely scrutinised for their global impact, it is important to be reminded of how gold contributes so broadly to the global economy, ranging from foreign exchange earnings for gold-exporting countries to employment opportunities and tax revenues This study demonstrates this clearly; of particular note is the fact that the economic value generated has a direct and sustained impact on the local economies where gold production or consumption takes place.

Economic collapse leads to extinction, Bearden:

Bearden 2k(T. E. Bearden, Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists, 2000, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Space Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea { } launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization

And, extinction comes first, because in order to value something, you must also value what makes that valuation possible, Uyl and Ramussen:

Uyl and Rasmussen 81 Douglas Den Uyl is a Professor of Philosophy at Bellarmine College Douglas Rasmussen is a Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s University, “Reading Nozick” p. 245

“In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one choose (value) man's life. It makes no sense to value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible :notice that this is different from saying "that which makes X possible"). If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the precondition of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no other way we can value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible.”

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}

Interp: If the affirmative reads a plan, they must specify to countries where the parametrisized resource extraction is a major part of the national GDP of over 20 of the respective countries or that they are the sole proprietors of that resource in the world.  To clarify, if the aff for example prioritizes environmental concerns over diamonds, they must concede the link that diamonds are a major part of the national GDP. 

Logical Ground - Limits
Clash
Fairness

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}

I extempted a Womyn K round 5 but probably not doing that again.

Tournament: Communitarianism NC | Round: Octas | Opponent: Akhil | Judge:
I value morality because it’s a guide for action.
Should implies a moral obligation, ELU:
"Difference between “should” and “ought To”." English Language and Usage. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.
Semantically, there is no real difference between the two constructions, and they can be used interchangeably. I agree with you that "should" has become the far more common construction. Even back to the Old English (and earlier Proto-Germanic), the words carry a nearly identical sense of obligation. As such, I'd be hard pressed to articulate even a minor connotative difference between the two forms in modern usage.
However, morality is amorphous, there is no single conception of what is good, MacIntyre explains:

“For I am ... inhabits these roles.”

 Everyone is different and has a different conception of good; for instance, what I think is good may be radically different from what My opponent or you yourselves enjoy doing. These goods are all contingent on our identity, which is derivative of our community, MacIntyre 2:

“As such, I ... would otherwise do.”

 Thus, because our community is inescapable and representative of us, we cannot undermine it or we would thus be undermining ourselves. Thus, the standard is promoting the continuity of the community.  Permissibility negates since it generates neg obligation: we ought not prioritize certain policy options if options are permissible since that gives us full options in the future to pursue whatever policy plans we want.  

 Finally, my framework precludes the aff’s, because the community is the source of all moral language. The concept of language implies community- multiple beings coming together to create something shared. For instance, the fact that you can understand the words coming out of my mouth is indicative that we subscribe either a common community or different communities with overlap i.e. ones that speaks English. If individuals were completely isolated, there would be no need as they wouldn’t need to communicate outside of their own thoughts. 

 I contend that prioritizing resource extraction over environmental protect is key to upholding the continuity of the community.

 First, the communities inherently requires resources to sustain itself i.e. for energy and other necessary functions. Thus, any sort of community requires some level of resource extraction or else it could not exist. However, these resources must derive from somewhere i.e. the environment, meaning that the community is constantly using the environment to sustain itself. Because denying these resources signifies the end of the community, we thus ought to prioritize resource extraction.

 Second, resource extraction is constitutive of our history, Reed:

Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002

“Resource extraction industries...for industrial revolution).”

 Finally, My opponent is going to try to cross- apply a lot of the AC contention offense in the 1AR. However, that is inherently problematic because the NC functions on a higher layer. The NC doesn’t take a stance on specific instances of resource extraction; rather it defends the resolution as a principle. This means empirical arguments coming out of the AC don’t link because its not part of my advocacy. To clarify this distinction, take the example of charity. We can say as a principle, charity, or giving to those less fortunate is a good thing. However, in the status quo, tons of charities do more harm than good i.e. through corruption or systemic inefficiencies. However, the fact that these charities in the real world have problems don’t deny the principle that charity is a good thing.

I contend that prioritizing resource extraction over environmental protection maximizes net benefits.

 Resource extraction is key to the economy- multiple warrants

First, resources the backbone of the environment, Reed 1:

Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002

“Non-renewable resources...the developed world.”

 Second, increasing extraction is economically key because it achieves economics of scale, Reed 2:

Darryl Reed, “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep., 2002

“On the technological....for new markets.” 

In order for economies of scale to be maintained, production must be maintained or increased. However, the aff. inherently reduces it through increased emphasis on environmental protection. Thus, industries will shut down because they will not be able to cover large fixed costs.

Third, is gold mining, Demand is extremely high now, Oliphant:

Oliphant 2013(Randal Oliphant- Chairman of the World Gold Council. “The direct economic impact of gold”. PWC. January 2013)

This is a ...consumption takes place.

Economic collapse leads to extinction, Bearden:

Bearden 2k(T. E. Bearden, Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists, 2000, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Space Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

History bears out ... Armageddon will destroy civilization

Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Preround Interp | Judge: Preround Interp
A: Interpretation: Debaters must disclose pre-written offensive arguments before the round that criticize the discourse of a debater including citing the alternative discourse that should be employed.