The other day, I was thinking. "What if I can write a debate case based on MLP?" It was an interesting idea, and it I didn't know exactly how it would turn out. I think it turned out great! If you have any comments or questions, feel free to post. I just wanted to share this with you guys, because I thought it was pretty cool.

Affirmative Case
I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. I provide the following definitions:
•Developing- to progress to a more advanced state or condition
•Prioritize- used to express the superiority of an action or ideal
•Environmental protection- a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels
•Natural Resource- resources which occur naturally within environments
RA: The use of the words “should prioritize” show that the resolution is concerned with an obligation to put the environment’s welfare first. Under the resolution, the affirmative seeks to prove that there is an obligation towards the environment a majority of the time. Also, the definition for environmental protection shows that protecting the environment is the goal of the affirmative, not preserving it. What this means is that the affirmative seeks to limit harms on the environment, not to disallow any change to it.
My value for this round shall be Harmony. I define this as the state in which all things are worthy of being observed, or the unity in variety as outlined by Leibniz’s Theory of the Good. My value of Harmony fulfills the resolution because of the priority expressed there. Leibniz's Theory of the Good shows that the obligation of all mortal beings lies in the attempt to imitate the divine nature in achieving that good. What this means is that all beings obligation rests in their imitation of divine harmony in all actions taken. My value should be paramount for this round because the priority, which is the highest matter of this debate, lies in the Harmony of a country's affairs.
My criterion for this round shall be the Elements of Harmony. The Elements of Harmony are the virtues of Kindness, Loyalty, Honesty, and Generosity. These virtues serve as the template by which Harmony is achieved. A being that expresses these traits within its action has achieved the highest level of Harmony that a governmental system could feasibly implement. By adhering to the Elements of Harmony, a government can assure its priority of Harmony in its actions.
Contention 1: The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, there exist within moral philosophy ideals which apply as categorical imperatives, or a specific direction of exercised will towards which all agencies possessing rational will must strive. It is categorical in that it applies to all rational agencies without regard to contingents or antecedent conditions. It is imperative in that it is a specific direction of will-not an ideal. Therefore in Kant’s sense, it is in practical rationality that all agents strive towards these categorical imperatives. Harmony is one such categorical imperative. All agents in possession of agency must exercise their will in a direction that contributes to the achievement of Harmony. Thusly, the priority of all moral and rational agencies rest in the Elements of Harmony.
Contention 2: The affirmative side is kind.
Within the scope of a government’s action, the measure of kindness to which the affirmative must support is in the actions done for the primary purpose of another’s well being. What this means is that to be kind, a government must be performing an action which benefits a group outside of its base of power. The affirmative is providing for this in the actions relation to neighboring countries and global proponents of environmental protection. This comes on the basis of the negative side’s harmful effects on the environment. “Historically, the nature and value of Earth’s life support systems have largely been ignored until their disruption or loss highlighted their importance. For example, deforestation has belatedly revealed the critical role forests serve in regulating the water cycle -- in particular, in mitigating floods, droughts, the erosive forces of wind and rain, and silting of dams and irrigation canals. Today, escalating impacts of human activities on forests, wetlands, and other natural ecosystems imperil the delivery of such services. The primary threats are land use changes that cause losses in biodiversity as well as disruption of carbon, nitrogen, and other biogeochemical cycles; human-caused invasions of exotic species; releases of toxic substances; possible rapid climate change; and depletion of stratospheric ozone.” (Gretchen Daly) As the welfare of the environment is a global matter, a government is performing an act of kindness in increasing the standard for environmental welfare within its area and around the world.
Contention 3: The affirmative is loyal.
Within this debate, loyalty applies to the fulfilling of obligations previously made to the country’s citizens, and to the sustainability of the practice.
A) Civil Obligations
A government, upon its establishment, receives an obligation to provide for the interests of the citizens it has jurisdiction over. For a government to be a loyal entity, it must continue to fulfill this obligation in continuing endeavors. With the affirmative, the government remains loyal through providing for the stability of its citizens socioeconomic interests. “Recent research undertaken by the World Bank and others suggest that developing countries face substantially higher risks of violent conflict and poor governance if they are highly dependent on primary commodities. Revenues from the legal or illegal exploitation of natural resources have financed devastating conflicts in a large number of countries across regions. When a conflict erupts, it not only sweeps away decades of painstaking development efforts, but also creates costs and consequences- economic, social, political, regional- that live on for decades. The outbreak of violent domestic conflict amounts to a spectacular failure of development- in essence, development in reverse...the presence of primary commodities, especially in low-income countries, exacerbates the risks of conflict and, if conflict does break out, tends to prolong it and make it harder to resolve.” (The World Bank)
B) Sustainability
A government can also remain loyal through the creation of sustainable policies that support ideals that were previously established within that government. Because continued existence is a commonly held ideal of the government, a developing country can remain loyal through the continued existence of itself. “Based in the world systems theory tradition, ecological unequal exchange theory holds that because of their position in the world system hierarchy, core nations are able to take advantage not only of the labor power but also of the natural resource wealth of periphery nations, while simultaneously exporting many environmentally degrading activities to the periphery. This results in underdevelopment and impoverishment in the periphery and increased wealth and economic power in the core.” (Jorgenson & Clark, 2009) Because the practice of resource extraction against the environment causes environmental degradation and impoverishment of the developing country, the negative is not loyal, in that it is not sustainable.
Contention 4: The affirmative is honest.
The measure of honesty by which a country abides by lies in the actual implementation of either side. Namely, this means that the affirmative must do exactly as it professes, and must only support what it will do. If a country were to profess a priority in environmental protection, then to abide by honest this very action must be taken. Thusly, a consequentialist view must be made to actually determine the ability of either side to remain honest in their policy. Because the negative side is not sustainable, as shown through the extensive social, environmental, and economic damages, there is a very limited potential for honesty in its implementation- the country would be forced to change its posture quite quickly. However, the affirmative can remain honest. Because the affirmative prevents these damages and promotes welfare in these categories, the affirmative side is sustainable.
Contention 5: The affirmative is generous.
“By nature human beings have many desires but are individually ill-equipped with strength, natural weapons, or natural skills to satisfy them. We can remedy these natural defects by means of social cooperation: combination of strength, division of labor, and mutual aid in times of individual weakness. It occurs to people to form a society as a consequence of their experience with the small family groups into which they are born, groups united initially by sexual attraction and familial love, but in time demonstrating the many practical advantages of working together with others. However, in the conditions of moderate scarcity in which we find ourselves, and given the portable nature of the goods we desire, our untrammeled greed and naturally “confined generosity” (generosity to those dear to us in preference to others) tends to create conflict or undermine cooperation, destroying collaborative arrangements among people who are not united by ties of affection, and leaving us all materially poor.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on Hume’s Moral Philosophy) What this means is that generosity is the basis by which human countries are founded- mutual cooperation in altruistic fashion. The affirmative provides for generosity because it places the governmental policies into a realm where it is removing the initial advantage of more resources for the purpose of the environmental welfare of its citizens and for the global community. Because there is no assured investment return on these actions beyond preventing economic collapse, it is a generous act. The negative side is not generous because it prevents the affirmative benefits for the purpose of more resources within its own country, a regard that is primarily selfish, in that it does not provide for the welfare of any entity outside of the developing country.

Conclusion: The affirmative side abides by all of the Elements of Harmony, and thusly is the side with the highest propensity towards achieving Harmony, the divine state of unity in variety that all beings have an obligation towards. Therefore, the affirmative is superior.

Tell me what you think, because if you guys think this would work, I just might compete with it.

2811543
Jesus Christ dude!

I'll read that later...maybe...

It does appear quite intimidating, doesn't it...Oh well. Not much to do about it now.

Also, for those who don't know, the topic for this case is the Lincoln-Douglas topic for January-February 2014. It was not randomly chosen by me.

I never heard of LD debates before, but it appears that you also should have provided a definition of influence or the set variable that developing countries can actually influence or even control the level of balance between environmental protection and resource extraction. It is already a complicated economic topic in industrial countries, but developing countries... the government is probably weaker (maybe a definition for that is missing, too), having less capital or possibilities to execute their laws (what also includes a certain dependence), what then moves the border between the private sector and the government's part in the national economy to the latter's side, giving the private sector much more power (e.g. but not i.e. influence on the judiciary). This may applies with a higher multiplier in democracies than in monarchies, what is an important separation in regards of Equestria.

But again, I'm not familiar with this sort of debate.