DEBATE: Should Environmental Protection be Prioritised Over Economic Growth?

[00:00:00] Solo Requiem: Hello everyone, I'm your host, Solo Requiem, and welcome to the final debate for the Coliseum. This has been a long stretch tournament starting with 16 individuals interested in debate and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and now we are only down to two. Both Zulu and Daniken have showed impressive judging results by destroying their competition at every point they've faced so far. Both were on the opposite side of the brackets and are now facing each other in the final. These two titans will clash, but only one will remain standing. Today, the final topic of the debate is this, economic growth ought to be prioritized over environmental protection. Zulu is taking a positive position while Daniken is taking a negative. A reminder to the audience that both speakers consensually agree to partake in this debate and face each other on this topic and in this tournament. Without further ado, whenever Zulu is ready, we'll start his timer. He has five minutes, but I understand he says he's going to be going a little bit over time, so I'll keep recording of that. [00:01:05] Speaker 2: In this debate, I am taking the position that economic growth ought to be prioritized over environmental protection. My argument is that one, humanity should prosper. Two, economic growth means greater prosperity. Three, environmental protection means lower prosperity. Four, therefore, economic growth should be prioritized over environmental protection. This argument cuts the very core motivation of the environmentalist movement. Namely, the environmental protectionist seeks to destroy man's success and happiness here on earth and return him to the dirt that he has pulled himself out of. This is apocalyptic in the very core sense of the word. The defining mark in apocalypse isn't that there is some zombie virus or a meteor hit or even that people died. Rather, the defining characteristic behind all apocalypses is that there is a mass breakdown in the capital structure. It is this capital structure, this collection of factors that are combined to produce further factors, eventually terminating in consumer goods, that is the mark of civilization. Economic growth means a growth in capital structure. It is turning away from dirty, brutal nature towards the clean and infinite power of man. The environmentalist inversion of this desire is a desire that man live not by using his mind to alter his nature to be habitable for him, but rather that he live as some lower animal, fending for survival and adapting to whatever circumstances he happens to be placed in. But just as a dog cannot live as a plant would by expecting his food to come to him, so too can a man not live like a dog does by adapting himself to his environment rather than the other way around. We are told that there is an environmental disaster facing us. What exactly is this disastrous towards? Man or non-man? It cannot be man. The human environment has never been better. Our lives are immeasurably superior to those who lived every day by hunting for their food and shivering in cold caves at night. Rather than this, the disaster is faced not by man, but by non-man. It is non-man that the environmentalist tells us that we must sacrifice for the sake of. We should not continue to conquer nature with our miraculous technology, they tell us, but rather we must restrict our growth, restrict our births, restrict our very minds. What the environmentalist is claiming when he wishes that man stop burning fossil fuels and stop glaciers melting is that those glaciers have a superior moral claim to the ice that they contain than does man to his own life and well-being. But in what standard do they base this? The standard is certainly not at the standard of a man's own life. But there exists no other possibilities. There exists here a deadly package deal. The environmentalist, like all altruists, preach that the sacrifice of man is the proper duty. They package together the fundamental questions and ethics of, one, what are values, and two, who should be the beneficiary of values. The altruist substitutes the second for the first. He tells us that anything is good if it's done in self-sacrifice. In the case of the environmentalist, done in sacrifice to inanimate matter. He faces here an infinite recursion. What are values? Values are when values are provided to others. This is the core of the environmentalist premise. It is the latest form of bromide that man must sacrifice his own achievements, because he achieved them. It used to be, in the words of FDR, that we must sacrifice for the underprivileged one-third of a nation. Then this sacrifice was stretched to include the underprivileged of the entire globe. Now we are told that we must sacrifice for the sake of seaweeds, bugs, and rainforests. The goal is always kept in mind, that man must sacrifice. It is just now that the collectivist has to change his tactics. The attack on the luxuries of modern times no longer points only at the rich, allowing for the poor to be his favourite group. These luxuries extend even to the most destitute modern man. Now he must attack the luxuries, and claim mud and soil as his favourite group. Still, he attacks the luxuries. They hate man's achievements, and oppose him on the grounds that he does achieve. To concretise this, consider the following passage from the ill-named Life magazine, published following massive blackouts in the eastern United States. It shouldn't happen every evening, but a crisis like the lights going out has its good points. In the first place, it deflates human smugness about our miraculous technology, which, at least in the area of power distribution and control, now stands revealed as utterly flawed. And it is somehow delicious to contemplate the fact that all of our beautiful brains and all of those wonderful plans, and all of that marvellous equipment, has combined produce a system that is unreliable. The love and pining for the environment that we often see these days has not come out of nowhere. It is a symptom of just how fully man has conquered nature in a modern society. Just as you might enjoy watching a horror movie from the comfort of your living room, you might enjoy going on a nature hike, because in either case you know that you are not in any real journey. These so-called natural environments are often not as natural as we might think. In my country, the great forests of England were shaped by medieval loggers, and the moors of the Scottish highlands were created by the most industrious of the Bronze Age farmers. It is places such as the Darien Gap, Antarctica, and the Sahara Desert that are the true representatives of nature. These locations are essentially uninhabitable by man. Even the tribesmen who live in the Amazon rainforest make clearings and burn away undergrowth. The Eskimos of northern Canada build igloos for warmth, and the men of the desert irrigate the soil with groundwater. Nowhere do you find man prosperous in some hippie harmony with nature. The environmental conservationists are staunch opponents of middle-class passivity. They defy conventional attitudes, clamor for action, and scream for change, all the while they are staunch proponents of a status quo with respect to the natural world. The motive is laid bare. Man must sprint back into the dirt, back into the animal kingdom, back into the grave where no production may take place. To quote Ayn Rand, in their cosmology, man is infinitely malleable, controllable, and dispensable. Nature is sacrosanct. It is only man and his work, his achievements, his might, that can be violated with impunity, while nature is not to be defiled by a single bridge or skyscraper. It is only human beings that they do not hesitate to murder. It is only human schools that they bomb, only human habitations that they burn, only human property that they loot, while they crawl on their bellies in homage to the reptiles and marshlands, whom they protect from the encroachments of human airfields, and humbly seek the guidance of the stars on how to live in its own incomprehensible planet. So to sum up, the conservationists want to conserve anything, except man, and control nothing, except man. And that is the end of my opening statement. [00:06:49] Solo Requiem: Okay, thank you. Apologies earlier if I had a mic lag for anyone listening. Um, Danny Kim, whenever you're ready to go, let me know. [00:06:59] Speaker 3: I'm ready. All right. [00:07:03] Speaker 4: When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. John Muir. It is because I agree with both the facts and sentiments behind this statement that I negate the resolution, economic growth ought to be prioritized over environmental protection. Observation one, burden of proof. In order to successfully negate this resolution, it is not my burden to prove that environmental protection ought to be prioritized over economic growth 100% of the time, but rather 51%. Contention one, sustainability requires environmental protection. Sustainability requires environmental protection. History teaches that time and time again, the result of a culture which prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection is a toxic mentality, which eventually places man in the role of God, where he sees no value in respect and gratitude for the resources which he has given, but rather is free to exploit them to a grossly unsustainable extent for immediate value. Economic growth simply cannot achieve sustainability without environmental protection first. Application one. Soviet Union's mismanagement of natural resources. The Soviet Union's approach to resource management in the 20th century, particularly under Joseph Stalin, often prioritized rapid industrialization over environmental concerns. This led to numerous environmental issues, including the pollution of Lake Baikal, deforestation, and most importantly, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which had long-term ecological and human health impacts as well as economic impacts because the lack of initial economic environmental protection efforts caused the world to shy away from a nuclear energy economy. Application two, the Dust Bowl. The Dust Bowl was a severe environmental disaster during the 1930s in the Great Plains of the United States, largely attributed to over farming and poor agricultural practices driven by economic incentives. Intensive wheat farming without crop rotation or other conservation techniques led to soil erosion and dust storms devastating the land's productivity and displacing thousands of families. When you first prioritize environmental protection and stewardship, true sustainable economic growth follows suit as the economy will have been built around renewable energy sources in the modern age. Contention two, true environmental protection propagates justice. True environmental protection propagates justice. Governments have an obligation to their citizens to protect them from injustices which result from unbridled economic growth sought by corporations incentivized to pillage any and all resources. Application one, corporate consumer propaganda machine versus cognitive environments. Corporate consumer propaganda machine versus cognitive environments. When most think of natural resources which compose our environment, they consider fossil fuels, agricultural products, as well as the cleanliness of air and water. However, there is a new environmental resource in the information age. Attention. The global advertising market was worth $615.2 billion in 2022. The IMARC group projects that the market will reach $834.9 billion in 2028. In the information age, the modern attention economy is incentivized to compromise the cognitive security of individuals in order to sell them a product or service. While the government ought to allow people the freedom to choose what they purchase, enabling the techno-capital machine to pander obesity, homosexuality, promiscuousness, drugs, violence, and directly manufacture unhealthy lifestyles through the ability to constantly bombard individuals with propaganda is wholly destructive for the global cognitive environment and is the status quo. In order for human civilization and the natural world to thrive, this prioritization of economic growth over environmental protection must cease immediately. Okay, now I'm going to take the remainder of my time to address some arguments I have against my opponent's case. So my opponent has three major points in his case. He tagged them as "humidities to prosper", economic growth leads to prosperity, and environmental protection does not lead to prosperity. Now, while I do agree with the first two points, I don't agree with the third. So I'm going to start with the third first and I'm going to talk about why I agree with the first two points. So my opponent, he said that environmental protection does not lead to prosperity, and I was looking for some applications or cited evidence under this where this has actually happened in the past and I did not catch any. So the reason that environmental protection actually does in turn lead to prosperity is because prosperity is something that must be sustainable. Let's say that I come upon a oil well and I want to profit upon this oil well right now. So I use it all. I'm not going to be prospering tomorrow. I'm not going to be prospering the next week. And that's what happens with these economies that are prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection. If we were talking on an individual basis, what would be better for an individual to prioritize economic growth and just do a quick cash grab for whatever resources are available and then get out. If we were talking about that, then yeah, maybe economic growth would be the most effective path forward. However, we live in a world where there must be order and we do not live in a, we don't, we don't live in the seven seas. So I'm going to move on and I'm going to talk about why I agree with his first two points. So of course, humanity should prosper. And that's why I urge you to vote negative because in order to be able to prosper on the longterm, you must prioritize environmental protection first so that you can have a sustainable society and sustainable living practices. Economic growth leads to prosperity. So while I do agree that economic growth leads to prosperity, I disagree that when economic growth conflicts with environmental protection, it leads to prosperity because when economic growth conflicts with environmental protection, and it's always chosen over environmental protection, such as is the stance of my opponent, what happens is injustice is a cure, as you can see through the many points that I made in my case. And then my opponent went on to say some more points. He said that environmental protection requires sacrifice. Environmental protection does not require sacrifice. Environmental protection requires investment. And it's an investment in the future. It's an investment in yourself. It's an investment in the world. It's an investment in culture, which will have a long lasting impact on the world. And that's why I urge you to vote affirmative. I mean, negative. Thank you. [00:13:41] Solo Requiem: Thank you. Now is the rebuttal period. So Zulu, whenever you're ready, you're five minutes. [00:13:49] Speaker 2: Yeah, so you have this argument about sustainability, and you're saying that environmental protection is leaning towards sustainability. Or at one point you say, I give the example of a guy going for a quick cash grab over long term investment. So the problem here is that economic growth does not mean high time preference. Economic growth can very much be low time preference, as you expect. As economic growth is continuing, that man is able to be more and more low time preference because he has a higher and higher capital structure. He has more capital, so he can engage in more long run processes of production. What this requires is that man is able to take nature given goods, nature given factors, produce them into capital goods, right? Production at its very core means making something non-natural. And this is where you're saying you disagree with my premise that economic growth means greater prosperity. Well, it's the distinctive feature between the natural and the unnatural is that one is produced. Whenever you have production, you have unnatural. So it might be the case that, you know, a brick wall outside my house, that those are natural resources. The stone in there is a natural resource, but you wouldn't say that the wall is natural. What makes it non-natural is that it's been warped, changed by a conscious effort by man from one form, which is not very useful to him, to another form, which is useful to him. It is whenever you have, um, any sort of produced thing, any, anything produced, anything which a man has decided is makes him more prosperous than not. That is when you have anti-environment. That's when you have production. Um, so yes, yes. So the, when you, what prosperity means is that you have more ends being achieved. What it means to have more ends achieved is that there's more production occurring, uh, more things have been taken from nature and being used by man instead. Uh, this is the distinctive factor. Um, you gave one argument there of, uh, the Soviet Union, um, where you're saying that that was very bad. And that's bull. That's very bad, right? Uh, these are, these are not examples of the free market is when you have a free market in these things. Uh, when you don't, when you aren't destroying man, when you aren't putting him back into the stone age, that's when you have these super long run incentives, you, you said that there's economic incentives to over farm the dust bowl. That's, that's completely false. Uh, only if, uh, you're considering a very, very short period of time, right? Uh, and the incentive would be to preserve those resources, to preserve, uh, the land that you are using to till. Like a farmer doesn't want his field to die. He wants to preserve that field. He doesn't want to be, to be natural. It's natural. He can't get in there and get a bunch of tomatoes or whatever. He wants to preserve that field. He wants to very, very heavily warp nature to make it better for him. But that doesn't mean that everything is dead. Warped nature doesn't mean death everywhere. It means vastly more life and prosperity by the standard of man's life, not by the standard of, uh, beetles and grubs and stuff like that. Um, [00:16:58] Speaker 3: Another point here. [00:17:04] Speaker 2: Yeah. So you, you mentioned also the, the cognitive environment. I would say this doesn't seem like, uh, topical to the debate. Uh, you know, it's not about, uh, what is good for like, you know, you're like thinking or anything. What makes humans healthy? It's about, should, uh, economic growth be prioritized over, uh, environmental protection. Um, that's when we're talking about the environment, we're not talking about, uh, are people obese or not. Um, and if you really do want positive cognitive environments, Then don't destroy man's mind, right? Uh, it is destructive of man's mind to say that he can't use it to warp his environment, to suit his own purposes. That is how you have a positive cognitive environment. Yes. And then you have, uh, true environmental protection. Um, what justice means is just giving every, every man is due. Um, you're saying that corporations are incentivized to pillage resources. This is very good. It's good that they're incentivized to pillage resources. We should pillage resources. Um, because, uh, when they're not pillaged, when there is left iron nature, they're not satisfying anybody. They're not making man more prosperous than it would otherwise. That is the fundamental point here, I think. And I suppose with that, I can do the end of the, uh, rebuttal period. [00:18:24] Solo Requiem: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Whenever you're ready. Five minutes. Mom, let me speak. I'll start your timer. [00:18:29] Speaker 3: All right. One second, please. Okay. All right. I am ready. [00:18:39] Speaker ?: Yep. Oh, hold on. Just lost a monitor. Let me switch over here. All right. We're back. [00:18:46] Speaker 4: Okay. I'm going to start at the top of the flow. I'm going to address arguments that have been made against my opponent's case. And then we're going to end off with arguments on, uh, against the negative side of the debate. So, um, first of all, I want to bring up that, uh, uh, my opponent only really responded to one of my arguments against his case. Uh, he basically said that more ends are being achieved by economic growth, uh, which is why it needs to be valued over environmental protection. Uh, so what I want to say just right off the bat is this is an example of an idealistic situation. This is in a perfect world. Yes. Uh, economic growth, um, with good actors and good actors and good actors and good actors and good actors. And everyone that is pursuing this economic growth, if they are all extremely wise and intelligent and they know exactly how to, uh, perform this economic growth, uh, without any negative, uh, harms, then this would be true. However, that is not the case because we, we have a history of, uh, events and, and repetitive events even that teach us what actually occurs when these things are prioritized one over the other, which is the, the crux of my case. And then I also want to emphasize that my opponent has not brought up a single real world example of where economic growth, where it's valued over environmental protection is actually paramount. And actually leads to prosperity. He has not brought up a single real world example of where true economic growth is valued over true environmental protection. And I'm not talking about environmental people that are pretending to be environmentalists that don't actually care about the environment or actually seeking to increase their capital that are actually seeking to increase their individual economic growth. I'm talking about true environmental protection that seeks to revolutionize economy through, uh, enabling the economy to transition away from being destructive and, and, and, uh, pillaging resources as I, as I stated, uh, in my argument previously. So let me just reiterate some of the arguments that didn't get responded to, um, and against his case. So, uh, okay, actually this might be a new one. So my opponent, he said that environmentalists view ice as, uh, greater than, than man. Just once again, I just, I just want to reiterate, man needs icebergs, man needs the world in which he lives. Man is not, man just did not just spawn in one day in the world. That's completely isolated from his environment. Man is a part of the world. And this is something that is largely not understood in Western culture. And it's something that must become understood and, and, and modern times because it is becoming more and more apparent that the actions which destroy the environment are the actions which destroy man. And time and time again, history has shown us that this is what happens. And which is why I urge you to look back on empirical and historical evidence for your decision and not just idealistic theory. So let me move on to some arguments that my opponent made against my case. So he basically said, uh, against my contention one, he said, um, economic growth does not mean high time preference. That's fine. But when economic growth is put up against environmental protection, it does. Because the only time when economic growth conflicts with environmental protection is where, uh, there are resources that are available and you're going to have to determine whether or not you're going to, uh, harvest those resources at the expense of the economy or the environment. And then basically he brought up Soviet Union. He, he basically had a blanket response to this. He said, not example of free market judge. I ask you where in the resolution does it specify free market? We're not just talking about free market today. We're talking about these concepts of economic growth and environmental protection and which should take precedent. So that I believe that point still stands. And also he did not respond to the fact that Chernobyl was the result of people prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection. And, uh, this is, you can also cross apply this to his high time preference, uh, response. Chernobyl is an example of, uh, a country choosing economic growth over environmental protection and having an impact on the world economy because the world became afraid to use nuclear energy, which could free millions and millions of dollars, uh, in, in natural resources. So for the dust bowl for the dust bowl, for the dust bowl, he said that he basically said, um, his response was that it's not actually incentives. There were, there were, there weren't actually, or, um, Oh, he said that ruining, ruining your farmland was not an incentive. Uh, because farmers are not incentivized to ruin their farmland. Naturally farmers are not incentivized to ruin their farmland. But when they live in a society that, uh, uh, is pushing an economic growth as paramount, then they will do it anyway because they are promised cash reward. And that is what exactly happened in the dust bowl. It happened. You can't say like, Oh, uh, it's not an incentive for farmers to, uh, destroy their farmland and for them to not use sustainable practices because it actually happens. Um, so, and then I guess my, uh, corporate propaganda, he basically said, it's not topical. Um, my, my response, you can cross apply that to the response of when I was talking about the icebergs earlier. Wrap it up by statement. You're on overtime. Humans are a part of the environment. Um, and as a result, our cognitive environments and the health of our cognitive environments will have a direct reflection on the world around us as with everything else in this world. It is all one and part of the same, which is why John Muir says, when one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the same to the rest of the world. Thank you. [00:25:01] Solo Requiem: Thank you. Uh, liquid Zulu, when you want to do your cross examination, let me know. [00:25:09] Speaker 3: So is this for questioning him? [00:25:12] Solo Requiem: Yeah. You put them in a hot seat where you ask him questions and he responds to like, yes or no, and then it's going to flip over. [00:25:18] Speaker 2: Sure. Um, should the dinosaurs have been preserved thus preventing man from ever coming into being? [00:25:24] Speaker 4: Man didn't exist when the dinosaurs existed. [00:25:27] Speaker 2: Sure. But imagine if you were like some sort of like alien or something, uh, you've predicted that man is going to come about, but, uh, there's also these dinosaur things. Um, would it have been good if, uh, you'd, if you'd preserved those dinosaurs and prevented man from ever coming into being? [00:25:43] Speaker 3: I would say that's a moral. [00:25:47] Speaker 2: Because the question is, should, uh, well, the, the claim you're trying to be making is that, uh, environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth, you know? [00:25:56] Speaker 3: Right. So in this situation, why not protect the environment over economic growth? I don't see the link there. [00:26:08] Speaker 2: So whenever you have economic growth, that's when man is going out there and producing things. He's taking things from nature and making it into something better for him. Right. Okay. So should we have prevented the first man from ever going out into nature and making the first fire or whatever? And just left man to starve? [00:26:28] Speaker 4: Would you, would you, are you, is it your position that man's every action on the environment damages the environment? [00:26:35] Speaker 2: Yes, but I'm crossing the line with you. [00:26:38] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:39] Speaker 2: So should we have preserved the environment pristine without ever having man touch it ever? [00:26:47] Speaker 3: No. [00:26:48] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:49] Speaker 2: Um, so if we shouldn't preserve the environment completely, when, when should we preserve it? And what distinguishes the situations where we should be preserving the environment? And when we should let man take from the environment? Uh, do you have a specific scenario? Well, I'm asking you for the principle behind, how would you go about your deciding? Well, this guy wants to go out and mine some ore from that mountain. Uh, how would you decide whether or not you should preserve the environment in that situation or not? Because apparently you shouldn't always preserve the environment. [00:27:32] Speaker 4: What is the duration of time before the mountain is gone? [00:27:35] Speaker 2: Um, well, it depends on how quickly he can mine it. [00:27:38] Speaker 4: Okay. There you go. So if there's one guy, it also depends on how many people there are. So if there's one dude and he exists in the world all by himself, I would say that there is no problem with him going and mining as much as he wants and consuming as much as he wants. If there's no other living creatures, if man is just alone and he just spawned in, in this empty Minecraft world, I would say. However, if man is not isolated and he exists in a realm where he requires the resources and the other individuals which live with him, then instead he is obligated to protect those, uh, that, uh, realm in which he lives for the long term. But this does not mean that he cannot use the resources. This just means that he must use the resources with environmental protection being the priority. [00:28:27] Speaker ?: Right. [00:28:28] Speaker 2: But whenever you have some, I want to take this from the ground, whatever, it's always going to be a question of whether I'm allowed to do it or I'm not allowed to do it. Right. It's never going to be, I'm only going to half cut down this tree. I'm only going to half mine this ore. It's always going to be, can I mine this specific piece of ore or not? Can I cut down this specific tree or not? Uh, there is no middle road between these. It's a binary. So how would you decide in any given situation? [00:28:55] Speaker 4: The world, the world of policy making and the world of, uh, government and, uh, running societies is not binary. Lawmakers are not binary. If you live in a world where, uh, everything is binary, then that's not the one I live in. [00:29:14] Speaker 2: Well, but answer the question. So I have maybe a forest to be simple here. I want to cut down all of the trees there and plant new trees or whatever. Uh, for any given tree, surely I'd be allowed to cut down one tree. What about two? What about three? Maybe there's a thousand trees in the forest. [00:29:29] Speaker 4: I have a problem with the analogies because they do not reflect the real world situation, which is why I bring up evidence in my case and I asked you to bring up evidence in your case. No, but you have to bring up situations where there are individuals in- [00:29:42] Speaker 2: I'm giving you a hypothetical situation here. Yeah, it's an analogy. I understand. There is this, there is this forest here, right? I want to cut down all of the trees and there are other- Are you alone? Okay. [00:29:51] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:29:52] Speaker 2: There's other people around. Okay. Yes. So there are other people around. Okay. At what point, how would you decide that's one tree too many? [00:29:59] Speaker 3: You're not allowed to cut down that tree. Uh, I would just say that you should not. [00:30:11] Speaker 4: I would, I would just say that when it comes time to make that decision, when they're like, Hey, we're actually, there's the trees are actually starting to run low. Then you decide, Hey, it's, it's, we need to stop cutting down trees. [00:30:25] Speaker 2: Well, now you're just kicking the can down to how do you determine when trees are running low, right? You're just rephrasing like, you know, where, how would you actually go about deciding this? I want to cut down all these trees. How do you just determine trees are running low now? So now you're not allowed to cut down. [00:30:40] Speaker 4: Okay. Let me, let me just, let me, let me just break it down for you then. So I believe that every individual person should be consuming the amount of trees that they need, uh, to thrive. [00:30:51] Speaker 2: Well, I, I, I have clearly decided that the way I need to thrive is by cutting out all the trees. That is what I've determined by my own actions of trying to cut them all down. Right? So that's how many trees I need to thrive is all of them. I can always thrive more by cutting down more trees because I'm a logger or whatever. [00:31:09] Speaker 4: Better, better, better prioritize environmental protection than if you got one of those guys in your, and we do. [00:31:15] Speaker 2: How much, how much thriving do you think is too much thriving for me? Right? You can, the can again, the thriving is too much. Okay. [00:31:23] Speaker 4: Here we go. So are you familiar with social contract theory? Yes. So social contract theory states that when you live in a society and you live amongst other people, your natural rights cannot infringe upon the natural rights of others. If you cut down all the trees, you're infringing upon the natural rights to prosperity, life and liberty of all the people that are around you. [00:31:41] Speaker 2: The only rights are property rights. First of all, there are no natural rights to prosperity. That's your opinion. It's not opinion. It's a fact. [00:31:48] Speaker 4: Okay. Well, you're, you're welcome to. [00:31:50] Speaker 2: I never signed any, any, I never signed a social contract. So if you're going to say there's a social contract out there, which says I'm only allowed to cut down. [00:31:57] Speaker 4: The social contract is implied. No, it's not. [00:32:01] Speaker 2: There is no implicit contract here. Cause I'm explicitly saying I didn't. [00:32:05] Speaker 4: If there's no explicit social contract, then how come you can't go out right now and punch [00:32:09] Solo Requiem: your neighbor? Reminder that this is a debate over environmentalism, not over the social contract theory. Please stay on topic. Right. [00:32:16] Speaker 2: Right. But his claim is that his social contract theory is what is implying how much prosperity is too much prosperity for me to attain. Right. [00:32:25] Speaker ?: Right. [00:32:26] Speaker 2: So this social contract, I agree. [00:32:28] Solo Requiem: I'm just saying it's like, I'm not, I was mainly addressing Dan. I can not use Zulu because you are cross examining him. So. Right. Okay. [00:32:38] Speaker 2: So this, this social contract, you're claiming that it in some way it's an implicit contract or whatever. Well, there is no implicit consent where there's explicit non consent, right? You couldn't say this guy is implicitly consenting to having us take his heart out or whatever whilst he's sitting there screaming. No, no, no. I don't. It's like, it's implicitly consenting. Like I'm, I'm explicitly not consenting. So is every other anarchist, right? [00:33:02] Speaker 4: I'm not, I'm not following. And I don't understand when this turned into an anarchy discussion. [00:33:06] Speaker 2: Well, when you brought up the social contract. [00:33:09] Speaker 4: Okay. Well you kind of cordoned me into bringing that up because you kept pushing towards me answering your scenario of determining an absolute decision for when it's right and wrong to stop, when it, when it's right and wrong to cut down a tree. It's not, it's not. My burden of proof. Okay. [00:33:30] Speaker 2: So the, the basis of your argument is that there is some times it should be prioritized and sometimes not be prioritized, right? Sometimes it's fine for man to increase his prosperity and sometimes not. I'm trying to dig into that as to how are you ever going to claim this to be the case? [00:33:46] Speaker 4: So my argument is most of the time, merely because that is what the resolution requires me to prove. [00:33:53] Speaker ?: Right. [00:33:54] Speaker 2: But I, you can't even demonstrate most of the time. You can't demonstrate any situation where it should be prioritized. Read my case. That's what I'm getting at. That's, I'm getting at it right now here. It's in my case. You said, you cannot tell me how many trees I'm allowed to cut down before it's too much prosperity for me. This is what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the fundamental point of your case here. Uh, you, you, you bring up all these, like, I'm not bringing up enough, uh, historical examples. They're all irrelevant, right? Is it easy? Can you, with whatever arguments you want to bring up, can you tell me how much prosperity I'm allowed to get before it's too much prosperity? And you can't, you cannot make a non-arbitrary decision on that. And so your entire argument, I just did, I told you, I said, you can't show in the majority of cases. All right. Is this a question? You can't show in a single case, right? Yes. Can you show me that? Can you show me in this single case of me wanting to cut down those trees? How many trees are too much for me to cut down? Just one case, just this one case. [00:34:53] Speaker 4: So you're saying I need to show you exactly how many trees it's okay to cut down. I already told you, you need to, as long as your rights are not infringing upon the rights of others. Then you can proceed as you were, which means if you are not consuming the trees to the point where nobody else can have trees, then you're not aligned with the negative. [00:35:20] Speaker 2: Right. So when did those do, does the entire community as a whole, do they all have a property right in this forest? Why are you asking me? This is your analogy. I'm, because I'm the one cross-examining you here. You're claiming. But you're asking me questions for specifics about your analogy. [00:35:35] Speaker 4: This is why I like to talk about actual evidence and actual situations. [00:35:38] Speaker 2: I'm trying, I'm clarifying, I'm clarifying, let me clarify. Right. Your claim is that at some point, I will have gone too far and violated their rights in the forest. Do they have a collective right in that forest though? [00:35:50] Speaker 3: Is this a collective property right they have? I mean, maybe, depends where you are. [00:36:01] Speaker 2: Okay. It could be. So collective property rights are an impossibility. I can explain why if you want. I'm good. Or if you want to. Okay. Yes. So the reason why collective property rights are an impossibility is because if you have a stick, which is owned collectively by A through Z. Right. And there's a conflict between A and B over who owns that stick. You know, how you should use that stick. Then if we, either we go with A should win that conflict or B should win that conflict. If A should win the conflict, then B doesn't own the stick. If B, then A doesn't own the stick. Either way, one of them doesn't own the stick, which contradicts the presumption that everybody with the stick. So you cannot have a collective property, right? So these people, they can't have a collective property right in that forest. So, cause then I want to cut down the forest. They don't want to cut there in the forest. Then suddenly in my property rights, I don't have a property right, which contradicts the presumption that I did. Right. So how are you resolving this conundrum? [00:36:52] Speaker 3: I'm not. [00:36:55] Speaker 2: So you can't resolve the conundrum. So therefore you can't tell me when it's too much. You can't even say that it is too much. I think the misunderstanding. You can't say that I'm violating their rights in the forest. You can't say that. You're welcome to say that in your case. If you do, then it implies a contradiction that you cannot resolve. [00:37:10] Speaker 4: Look, I think the misunderstanding is we're not just talking about in a free market economy where there's given rights. We're just talking about economic growth versus environmental protection. We could be talking about under socialism. We could be talking about under communism. We could be talking about under Nazism. It's just about which yields the net positive impact. And then the negative side proves that with empirical evidence and not just with analogies that have not been carried out in real life. [00:37:35] Speaker 2: So your claim to that end was that after a certain point of cutting down trees, I violate the collective right of everybody else held in that property. I demonstrated that collective rights are impossible. They cannot occur. It implies a contradiction. So unless you resolve this contradiction, you cannot claim your case. You cannot claim that at some point I cut down too many trees because this then violates a collective property right. I disagree. You see the problem there. So how do you resolve that conundrum of collective property rights? [00:38:05] Speaker 4: I don't need to resolve your analogy. I just explained how you do. No, because your analogy, your conundrum of there being no collective rights doesn't exist. It does. [00:38:17] Speaker 2: So this is the entire point of your case though. Is that at some point when I'm over farming the dust bowl or whatever, or I'm draining the sea or whatever it was, at some point I'm violating a collective property right of everybody else. [00:38:32] Speaker 4: Let me answer this question. [00:38:33] Speaker 2: That is your claim. [00:38:34] Speaker 4: The water is not murky when it comes to what is a sustainable farming practice and what is not a sustainable farming practice. Right. [00:38:39] Speaker 2: But you're saying if I'm doing unsustainable farming, the reason why that's bad… No, you're creating a scenario where you're acting like environmental protection is murky [00:38:49] Speaker 4: water, where you don't know what is actually environmental protection. In the real world, this is not the case. There are farming practices… [00:38:56] Speaker 2: No, no. You don't know what is environmental protection. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that your claim is that at a certain point of me over farming or overfishing or whatever, doing non-sustainable practices, at a certain point I violate a collective property right of everybody else. So how do you resolve the contradiction implied by collective property rights? That is the basis of your case. How do you resolve the contradiction there? [00:39:19] Speaker 4: So you're saying that it's impossible for people to have collective property rights. Could you reiterate how again? [00:39:26] Speaker 2: So imagine we have just a set of people, A through Z, they each own a stick. All of them own the same stick. Okay. Right. A wants to use it for spearfishing. B does not want it to be used for this case. Let's say we decide it should be used for spearfishing. That means that B did not own the stick because he didn't want it to be used for that case. So he is determined to be justly losing that conflict, which means he does not own it. Right. Not the one who's allowed to control its use. So that contradicts the presumption that B did own the stick. That everybody in the set owned a stick. [00:39:58] Speaker 3: Aren't they just break the stick in half? [00:40:00] Speaker 4: Because then it's not the same stick, right? What's wrong with it not being the same stick? [00:40:06] Speaker 2: Because they own the stick. This is the problem with analogies. Nobody in the set wants it to be broken in half, right? Because if you break it in half. I want it to be broken in half. Right. But then I say I don't want it to be broken in half. So how do you resolve that conflict? [00:40:21] Speaker 4: Uh, find a new stick? [00:40:24] Speaker 2: No, no, no. That doesn't resolve the conflict. Last stick on earth. Bro. I don't want it to be used for this stick. So even if there are other sticks, it doesn't matter, right? I don't want it to be broken in half. You do want it to be broken in half. You cannot resolve this conflict. Either way, when you pick, if you do break it in half, then I don't own the stick. If you don't break in half, then you don't own the stick. Either way, one of us doesn't own the stick and therefore you have a contradiction. Okay, how about this? [00:40:50] Speaker 4: What if none of us own the stick? [00:40:52] Speaker 2: That is, that also. What if none of us own the stick and the stick was given to us? That, that also contradicts the presumption that everyone in the set own the stick. That does not resolve the contradiction. [00:41:02] Speaker 4: So if we were given the stick, then that means. So we all own the stick, right? Yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Given the stick. So we were given the stick. Do we own it or not? No, no, no. We don't. We don't. I'm not talking about a different scenario. [00:41:18] Solo Requiem: I'm talking about this scenario. Hey, hey, a reminder. Let's not get sucked down this rabbit hole for this. Okay. All right. Back to the original thing. Dan again, like I said earlier, again, this is cross-examination. Right. This is an open section. So please listen to Zulu. Just answer his questions. Okay. And Zulu, you got three more questions. We'll flip it over. [00:41:38] Speaker 2: Well, so this, this really is my primary question here because his entire case is breaking down into this situation where if I'm doing non-sustainable practices, this means that I'm violating a collective property right of other people in the community. So he has. So Danakin, how do you propose to resolve the contradiction implied by a collective property [00:42:03] Speaker 3: right? Love. Love? Love. How does love resolve the contradiction? [00:42:17] Speaker 4: Because love prompts self-sacrifice. I love you. So I'm gonna break the stick in half, even though I don't want to. [00:42:24] Speaker 2: Right. But that is not addressing the scenario where A does want the stick to be used for spearfishing. B does not. So how do you resolve this scenario? Property rights are not there to resolve scenarios when everyone's in agreement over how to be used, right? It's when people disagree. How do you resolve the disagreement without contradiction? Either you pick A or B. Either way, you have a contradiction. There is no third option. [00:42:47] Speaker 3: So how do you resolve this problem? I just said, you just don't like my response. [00:42:56] Speaker 4: Right. [00:42:57] Speaker 2: So your solution to when people disagree over how to use the stick, your solution to that contradiction is, well, what if they didn't disagree? Do you not see how that doesn't resolve the contradiction there? [00:43:08] Speaker 3: It's more of, it's not actually their stick. [00:43:13] Speaker 2: So you think there is no such thing as property rights? [00:43:16] Speaker 4: No, I think there are property rights. But when it comes to conflict, the discussion changes. Because you don't, because I believe in the social contract, but we're not talking about social contract theory. We're talking about your analogy. [00:43:29] Speaker ?: Yes. Yes. [00:43:31] Speaker 2: So in the scenario painted, either A gets to use the stick for spearfishing or B wins and it does not be used for that use. Which one do you pick? Does it use for spearfishing or not? One more time. [00:43:44] Speaker 3: So A wants to use the stick for spearfishing, B does not. [00:43:50] Speaker 2: Does the stick get used for spearfishing? Yes or no? [00:43:54] Speaker 4: There's no other sticks. No other sticks. Person A, he would probably kill person B with the spear. And then go spearfishing with it anyway. That's resolved. [00:44:09] Speaker 2: Boom. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not asking. So then it doesn't say it does get used for spearfishing, which means B did not own the stick, which means you have a contradiction. [00:44:16] Speaker 4: No, it means that A took it from, from B by killing him. [00:44:20] Speaker 2: So, which means B does not own the stick, right? Cause that, which contradicts the presumption. Cause B was deemed to be the one who should lose there. That A should be allowed to kill B with the spear. [00:44:29] Speaker 4: No, I didn't say he should be allowed to. I just say that that would resolve the conflict. [00:44:33] Speaker 2: Well, I'm, I'm asking in the realm of ethics, how should this be solved? Which one should it go forth? Should the spear fit? Should it be used for spearfishing or not? Either way. If it's not, then A does not own the stick. If it is, then B does not own the stick. [00:44:49] Speaker 4: So I think it should be used for spearfishing because it would be a shame to just leave the stick not being used for anything. Okay. [00:44:55] Speaker 2: So then B doesn't own the stick. How do you resolve that contradiction? Cause it was presumed that B did own the stick. It was presumed that everybody in the set owned the stick. [00:45:03] Speaker 4: Look, I know what you're doing here. I'm not going to play this game. Debate? No, I, I'm not going to resolve your contradiction for the scenario, which doesn't exist. It does exist. I've explained how it exists. Okay. Tell me one example in the real world where this exists, where this has happened. [00:45:21] Speaker 2: Um, well, I don't, that's, that's my point. I don't think there is such a thing as collective property rights because it implies a contradiction. Okay. So then it doesn't exist. [00:45:29] Speaker 4: Yes. Collective property rights don't exist. Okay. So then, but I agree. Then your whole case is gone. No, no, no. Because conflict between economic growth and environmental protection do exist. So we need to be talking about that. [00:45:39] Speaker 2: Yes. And so the reason why we should be going for sustainable development in your words is because otherwise you violate a collective property right that everybody else holds. Oopsie daisies. That doesn't exist as we've just agreed. [00:45:49] Speaker 3: So we've established that my case is correct. Yours is incorrect. [00:45:52] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:45:53] Speaker 3: Cool. I'm glad we agree. I mean, we definitely don't agree, but I just said, okay, because I'm going to talk about it in my case. [00:46:01] Solo Requiem: Zulu, are you good if we rotate over now, Tim, doing cross-examination? Sure. [00:46:07] Speaker 4: All right. So here we go. [00:46:09] Speaker 3: Do you agree that all resources should be pillaged? Yes. You agree that all resources should be pillaged? To what extent? [00:46:21] Speaker ?: Full. [00:46:22] Speaker 3: Full. Fullest extent? Mm-hmm. Okay. Didn't expect that one, did you? [00:46:28] Speaker ?: All right. [00:46:29] Speaker 4: So in your case, you talked about how environmental protection is a sacrifice. So what is the sacrifice there? Mm-hmm. What are you sacrificing to protect the environment? [00:46:53] Speaker 2: So you're sacrificing man's own well-being there, because whenever man- [00:46:58] Speaker 4: On what time scale? [00:47:01] Speaker 2: On whatever time scale. It doesn't matter. This is not a time preference question you've asked. You've asked, what is it sacrificing? I just made it a time preference question. So rephrase the question as a time preference question then. Okay. [00:47:12] Speaker 4: Okay. So if environmental protection is a sacrifice, okay, so let's see. [00:47:24] Speaker ?: Let's see. [00:47:25] Speaker 3: How do I word this? [00:47:27] Speaker ?: Okay. I'll just move on to the next question. [00:47:33] Speaker 3: Um, so you talked about how, would you agree that humans are part of the environment? [00:47:45] Speaker 2: So in one sense, if you're just talking about everything in reality, yes, that's not a very useful sense of the word. So in the sense of this debate, the environment would be non-human. So no, they wouldn't be. [00:47:58] Speaker 4: So, so you're saying humans are not part of the environment because otherwise it would be a non-useful definition. [00:48:05] Speaker 2: So per is, it's a non-useful definition of the environment. If you're just talking about everything in reality. [00:48:11] Speaker 4: Isn't that, isn't that what the definition of environment is? [00:48:14] Speaker 2: So I could explain this. So you can't say that we should be prioritizing reality over economic growth because that when you're having economic growth, you aren't destroying reality. You aren't. There's no sense in which you are. No, you're not destroying reality. [00:48:28] Speaker 4: So would you agree that pillaging all resources would destroy an aspect of reality? [00:48:33] Speaker ?: Nope. [00:48:34] Speaker 2: It would just be transforming those resources into something else, right? You haven't destroyed any matter there. The reality still is firm, right? You haven't. Okay. [00:48:44] Speaker 4: So let's say, let's say we nuke the earth. Let's say that we nuke the earth and there's no more earth. There's no anything on the earth. Did we destroy reality? Did we have an impact on reality? Okay. But would you say we had an impact on the environment? [00:48:59] Speaker 2: In the environment? Yes. Okay. No reality. [00:49:04] Speaker 4: Okay. So then wouldn't that mean that we're not talking about all reality when we include part of the environment? Sorry, you cut out there. Wouldn't that mean that we are not talking about, we're not referring to the environment as all of reality when we include humans as part of the environment? [00:49:24] Speaker ?: Yes. Well, yes. [00:49:26] Speaker 2: We're not talking about all reality. Okay. Okay. [00:49:29] Speaker 4: There we go. I'll move on. I'll move on. Yes. Do you believe that man created man? [00:49:34] Speaker ?: No. Okay. [00:49:36] Speaker 3: Well, some men create some men. Well, some men create some men. [00:49:39] Speaker 4: Do you believe that man as a species created man? No. [00:49:42] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:49:43] Speaker 4: Okay. So then it would be safe to assume that man originated from where the rest of nature originated from. Mm-hmm. Okay. So then it would be safe to assume that man is part of nature. [00:49:58] Speaker 2: Well, the natural in this sense, like what do you think nature means? [00:50:05] Speaker 4: This is my cross-examination. Would you agree with that statement? You could say no. [00:50:10] Speaker 2: So the question is, is man part of nature? [00:50:14] Speaker 4: So considering the fact that man has the same origin as all of nature and exists in the same place as all of nature, wouldn't that imply that man is a part of nature? [00:50:26] Speaker 3: No. Okay. And how? [00:50:31] Speaker 2: Well, just because like, you know, just because I, you know, the people on the Mayflower came [00:50:37] Speaker 3: from England, that doesn't mean that Americans are English. [00:50:44] Speaker ?: Right? [00:50:45] Speaker 3: Okay. But it means they're human, right? [00:50:48] Speaker 2: Yes, they are human. Right. Okay. But I can relate those, right? I can say just because at one point in time, man evolved out of some lower creature doesn't mean he is still a lower creature. [00:51:03] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:51:04] Speaker 3: Because walls are not natural features. They're man-made. But you agreed that man did not create man. So then man is not man-made. [00:51:16] Speaker 4: So then what? So if there's natural and there's man-made, then what's the third thing that man is? [00:51:22] Speaker ?: No. [00:51:23] Speaker 2: So man is man, right? So this is the distinction. So the distinction is the metaphysically given versus the man-made. So that man exists. That is metaphysically given. [00:51:34] Speaker 3: That man does certain things. That is man-made. Do you get thirsty? Mm-hmm. So you need, you need water to exist. Mm-hmm. [00:51:48] Speaker 4: So then wouldn't that make you a part of the only place that exists that is a source of water? [00:51:57] Speaker 2: Well, that wouldn't make me, that would, that doesn't make me part of that place. But I am part of that place. [00:52:03] Speaker 4: So then you just agreed that you as a man are part of nature. So you are part of the environment. Your environment is part of the environment. [00:52:11] Speaker 2: So again, that man exists. [00:52:13] Speaker 3: That is indeed metaphysically given. Yes. Okay. No further questions. [00:52:18] Speaker ?: All right. [00:52:19] Speaker 3: Thank you. Liquid Zulu. [00:52:21] Solo Requiem: Now is your five minutes for your rebuttal response, followed by Danikin's five-minute rebuttal response. Whenever you're ready, I'll start your timer. [00:52:37] Speaker 2: So we have it now that Danikin has, his entire case is based on that. We should have sustainable development. We should prioritize the environment in those cases. We're not prioritizing it, violates a collective property right in the community's property right. So this implies a irreconcilable contradiction. So his entire case falls on that ground. My case still stands. I have one, that humanity should prosper. We agree on this. Two, economic growth means greater prosperity. Again, we agree on this. And three, environmental protection means lower prosperity. There's disagreement there. I'll get back to that. Four, therefore economic growth should be prioritized over environmental protection. I think my point three stands, right? It is the case that environmental protection means lower prosperity. Because whenever you have environmental protection, as has been agreed by Danikin, at least implicitly, you have, when man is not going and cutting down that tree, you're protecting that tree against man. What this means is that man is lowering his prosperity in favor of the tree, in favor of protecting the environment. This means that environmental protection, wherever you're applying it, however inconsistently you're applying it, if you apply it to a single shrub on the ground, you're still prioritizing the environment over economic growth, over mankind's prosperity, over man's mind and his life and his well-being here on earth. Wherever you have that, wherever you have environment protection, you have lower prosperity than otherwise. And any time preference argument is irrelevant to this. Because whether it's over a short period of time or a long period of time, this argument remains. This argument does not make reference to time preference anywhere in it, right? So, therefore, the conclusion follows that environmental, that economic growth should indeed be prioritized over environmental protection. Because my argument stands and Danikin's falls. It falls into an irreconcilable contradiction. No matter, and he brings up this point that I'm not bringing up enough, you know, real-world examples. These real-world examples are completely irrelevant to this argument I've made. It's completely irrelevant to the fact that Danikin has a contradiction in his claim. Real-world examples are just fluffy, right? They're sprinkling on top of any sort of argument. It's fine enough to relate your abstract case to some concrete example, right? That's completely fine. But we're dealing in the realm of abstracts here. We're not dealing in the realm of what caused the dust bowl or anything like that. The proposition is about abstracts, right? So, concretes are not required here. It would be required only insofar as I need to prove that I'm not making a floating abstraction. So, maybe I am, right? Humanity. That's one term in my argument. That's not a floating abstraction. We both agree humans exist. Prosperity. That's not a floating abstraction. We both agree that prosperity is a real thing. It has real concrete reference. Economics. Greater prosperity. All of these things. All these things I bring up. The environment. Everything. Nothing I bring up is a floating abstraction. Danikin has not shown a single floating abstraction in anything I've said. So, bring up this point that I don't have any real-world examples. It's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. And I suppose that's me done with my rebuttal. [00:55:52] Speaker ?: All right. Thank you. Thank you whenever you're ready. You're done. All right. [00:55:57] Speaker 4: So, I'm going to start at the top of the flow and I'm going to address arguments that were discussed during cross-examination and during my opponent's rebuttal period. And I'm going to go reiterate some arguments that have not been addressed since the beginning of my case. And then I'm going to address the two arguments that my opponent made in his rebuttal. So, here we go. We're going to start with the affirmative side. So, let's see. Actually, I'll start with the arguments my opponent just made that are fresh in memory. So, my opponent, he basically said that my entire case doesn't stand because of his analogy, which proves that there is a conflict because we can't determine what exactly is considered environmental protection. I think that's what he's trying to say. I'm not 100% clear on what my opponent is saying here. So, basically, that was his rationale for saying that he doesn't need to have any real world because of his perfect analogy that directly applies to every scenario in the real world where policymakers are making decisions. Judge, I have a question for you today. If you had to go after this debate and make a decision on whether or not – wait. Did I just leave or – oh, no. We're good. If you had to go and make a decision on whether or not a policy was going to take – be taken into effect, I guarantee to you, you will be examining empirical and historical evidence over analogies and abstractions because this is the real world in which we live and this is the real world in which we debate. I'm not going to pretend like this debate is just about abstract because it is not. We are talking about tangible concepts, tangible countries, and a tangible world where we are [00:57:47] Speaker 3: part of. [00:57:49] Speaker ?: So, yeah. [00:57:50] Speaker 4: So, just once again, you can tag that as a turn to his argument where he says real world examples are fluffy. The turn is going to be tagged as abstractions are fluffy. And then also, my opponent, he brought up an argument. He's saying – just once again, in reference to his main argument, his analogy, just another side note, I just want to say, forests must be cleared periodically. So, it's not always economic growth to cut down a tree. Sometimes, it's protecting the environment to go and cut down a tree. Once again, this analogy just doesn't stand. This is why we need real world examples. We need real world examples because analogies are inherently – because they just don't [00:58:45] Speaker 3: apply in the real world. [00:58:50] Speaker 4: So, moving down to my side of the flow, I'm going to address some arguments that my opponent made against my case. Just once again, I want to remind everybody that we're talking under the context of the resolution where environmental protection comes into conflict with economic growth and we're not just talking about is economic growth good and is environmental protection bad. We're talking about what needs to be prioritized over the other. And I believe that the negative has upheld this position through evidence, through showing that look, Soviet Union, Chernobyl, these people, they did my opponent's position. They upheld economic growth over environmental protection. Look what happens. It, in turn, hurts economic growth in the long run. The Dust Bowl. My opponent said, "We don't need to be talking about the Dust Bowl because it's irrelevant." But the Dust Bowl is extremely relevant even today because there are unsustainable farming practices that are happening today which are compromising topsoil and we will not see the consequences of this for a few years down the road. But that does not mean that that – but whether or not there will be consequences should be taken into consideration into what is prosperity. That's the other problem is my opponent keeps saying, "Oh, we're debating abstractions so there's no time we need to be – there's no time being taken into account." However, that's why you can't just debate abstractions because in the real world it's always a time-based thing. Economic growth is – every single time economic growth in the real world comes into conflict with environmental protection, it's because of time. Almost every single – almost every single instance. It's because of time. Because they do not want to take the time to harvest the resources sustainably which may be slower because they wish to have a certain level of prosperity. They wish to have a certain desired level of human flourishing which my opponent was talking about earlier. This is why we cannot deal with abstractions and we must deal with real-world impacts and real-world examples which is the crux of the negative case. Not what my opponent is saying where the crux of my case is this assumption of collective rights. [01:01:08] Speaker 3: So moving down the flow. I'd say Ben, in here over time. Okay. [01:01:17] Speaker 4: So my opponent, he had this argument where he was – humans are not part of the environment. He's saying that there's man and then there's the environment. However, my opponent conceded in two different instances during cross-examination that man is indeed part of the environment. Because, number one, he said that yes, man does need water. And the only place which supplies water is the world in which man lives. Therefore, man is a part of the whole. Man is 80% of water. The earth is 80% of water. [01:01:44] Speaker 3: To say man is not part of earth is ignorant. And then – that was the last statement. So I conceded the rest of my time. Okay. [01:02:00] Solo Requiem: So what we're going to do really quick is 10 minutes of free flow as then you guys just talk amongst yourself back and forth. And then we'll go into your closing arguments. So I'll let you know if either of you guys get out of control or start pushing it, I'll give you a warning. If you ignore the warning, then it's going to cut directly to closing arguments. So whenever you guys are both ready, I'll start the timer for 10 minutes. [01:02:21] Speaker 4: So this is just like – is this like cross-examination or what is this? [01:02:26] Solo Requiem: No, it's just you guys like going back and forth because there seems to be a lot of like misrepresentation or like understanding. So you guys just talk amongst yourselves. Okay. [01:02:34] Speaker ?: Sure. [01:02:35] Speaker 2: So you made the claim there that the Soviet Union is upholding economic growth over environmental protection. You made this claim a few times. I would say they weren't. They were upholding economic destruction over environmental protection. That their motive was environmental economic growth isn't relevant to what they're actually doing. Right? It's as if we can just dispense with the actual actions. Okay. [01:02:57] Speaker 4: Can I respond to this? Sure. Okay. So I'm talking about a specific instance. I'm not talking about the Soviet Union as a whole. I'm talking about a specific instance with Chernobyl where they made specific decisions to move forward with compromising the environment and to move forward with unsafe practices for the promise of what nuclear energy could do for the economy. Do you understand? [01:03:26] Speaker 2: Yes. So their motive might have been economic growth, but their actual means, their actual actions were economic destruction. They're destroying the economy and building Chernobyl and doing all that stuff. Okay. [01:03:38] Speaker 4: Because they're central planners. But that's my whole, that's my whole entire point though. Is that economic growth. Is you agree with me? No, no, no. Hold on. So my whole point is that economic growth, when environmental protection is not valued first, results in negative economic growth. [01:03:57] Speaker 2: No, this wasn't economic growth though. They were out going about and destroying the economy. The incentive was economic growth. [01:04:05] Speaker ?: No, no, no, no. [01:04:06] Speaker 2: The incentive. [01:04:07] Speaker 4: They don't have incentives. [01:04:08] Speaker 2: No, no, no. They don't have incentives. [01:04:10] Speaker ?: You're saying, okay. [01:04:11] Speaker 4: So you're saying that, hold on, hold on. So you're saying, so you're saying that Joseph Stalin had no economic incentive to have nuclear energy. [01:04:18] Speaker 2: He has no economic incentives whatsoever. He can't, none that he can see at least, right? He has no price structure. [01:04:25] Speaker 4: Okay. I feel like I've seen the relevance there. [01:04:28] Speaker 2: I feel like you're saying that there were incentives that they were going for economic growth here. I'm saying they're not. They're going for economic destruction. They were destroying private property and the economy. They had no economy there. [01:04:41] Speaker 4: Well, what was the aim? What do you believe the aim of Chernobyl was? Well, what do you believe the aim of a nuclear power plant? What was the point of a nuclear power plant? [01:04:47] Speaker 2: Well, like every single decision made by the Soviets, it was completely arbitrary. What is the point? They were wanting some power. They didn't know how much power they needed. They didn't know how to build it. Right. They didn't know anything because they didn't have an economy. Right. So it's not economic growth. [01:04:59] Speaker 4: Right. So they didn't have an economy. They needed power. They got desperate. So they, in the pursuit of economic growth, they built. [01:05:06] Speaker 2: No, no, no. Yes. That's what you said. What you're assuming there is that they have access to prices. That's what economic growth means. Economic growth with respect to, I want to maximize my outputs and minimize my costs. Right. Maximize production, maximize profits, minimize costs. They didn't have any profits. They didn't have any costs. They didn't know anything. [01:05:23] Speaker 4: Zulu. Liquid Zulu. Just because something is not explicitly having costs does not mean that it's not in the pursuit of economic growth. It's very ignorant to say that building a nuclear power plant is not a policy in the pursuit of [01:05:45] Speaker 3: economic growth. What is the economy? You know where that word comes from? Eco. I do. [01:05:54] Speaker 4: So the Latin root, eco. Eco. Yes. Here, let me tell you right now. Hold on. You asked me a question. Hold on. You asked me a question. You asked me a question. So I'm going to define what economy is. [01:06:07] Speaker 3: Just give me like 30 seconds here. Because I have a definition for this. [01:06:17] Speaker 4: Eco plus ology, that's the Latin root and the suffix, it equals the study of living things and the relationship to each other. Eco and namos. That's ecology. I know. Eco and namos, which equals economy, is a study of the management of resources to ensure their survival. Right. [01:06:37] Speaker 2: So it's the management of the household, right? [01:06:40] Speaker 4: The management of resources. [01:06:42] Speaker 2: So, yeah. The management of the house. Like, that's what it was meaning in like the Greek or whatever. Economia, right? So what this means is managing resources, economizing them, right? Trying to maximize the gains for minimal input. It's economizing, making things more efficient, getting to better lines of production. None of this is possible under Soviet central planning. Properly speaking, they don't have an economy. They have a society where they're making arbitrary decisions. They're not economizing anything. [01:07:17] Speaker 4: So there is no economy. Look. There's no social economization. Here's my response to this. Based on this definition, wherever there is resources, there is economy. Wherever there is management of resources to ensure survival, there is economy. The type of government is irrelevant here and is an abstract and is why we need to be looking at real world example. Because in the real world. So it's an economy without economizing. [01:07:38] Speaker 2: Hold on. [01:07:39] Speaker 4: Because in the real world, every instance where there is management of resources, there is economy. And every instance where somebody mismanages those resources at the expense of the environment for the hope of growth, it is relevant to this debate. [01:07:58] Speaker 2: Right. Well, I suppose we're not going to get far there anyway. I'm not sure how happy the economists would be with that, but sort of not. [01:08:06] Speaker 4: Oh, I'm not a fan of economists. So I don't really care what they think. [01:08:12] Speaker 2: So, yes, you have this also this back and forth notion that you're not liking how I'm making the abstract case. You want me to be relating it to more particular concretes. I mean, I did with my analogies. I did relate them to concretes. So do you think there is some floating abstraction in my claim? Like just any floating abstraction. [01:08:31] Speaker 4: Please cite one smidgen of empirical or historical evidence that has been mentioned in your case. That is explicitly what I was referring to, not the contents of your analogy. Analogies are inherently flawed and cannot be used to prove points, as I've said over and over again. And you can see that. And if you didn't believe that before, I hope you believe it after you watch this debate through all the way. [01:08:52] Speaker 2: What is the purpose of the empirical evidence? For what reason? Why do you want me to get you that? [01:08:56] Speaker 4: Because you can see what happens in the real world. You can see what actually happens when environmental protection is put up against economic growth. And when economic growth, the hope of economic growth is valued first. [01:09:08] Speaker 2: Yeah, we get the internet. No. Or we can have debates like this. No. Do you think the people who made the internet were carrying a smidgen? Where's the conflict? [01:09:17] Speaker 4: Where's the conflict between the internet and the environment, sir? Once again, you're bringing up another example of economic growth being good, but no conflict between environmental protection and economic growth. [01:09:28] Speaker 2: As I explained, whenever you have any production, there's a conflict between that and environmental protection. Every single… That is a false analogy. This is how… Every single… That's a false analogy. This is how… Every single doodad inside of my computer had to be mined from some hill or cut down or whatever. That is a false abstract. That's not protecting the environment. This is how… [01:09:49] Speaker 4: That's not protecting the environment. [01:09:50] Speaker 2: This is how… [01:09:51] Speaker 4: What does that mean? That is a false abstract. This is how. Cutting down a tree can be environmental protection. Forests must be cleared periodically. [01:09:59] Speaker 2: Yes, but they weren't doing it to protect the environment. Do you understand why I say that? [01:10:04] Speaker 4: They weren't doing it when they made the railroads. You understand that I'm not saying that because I want to argue about trees, but because it's about the fact that analogies and abstractions cannot prove points. Okay, so you can't make an abstract point. Is that your claim? No, you can make an abstract point. But when it comes to weighting those abstract points against real-world events, the real-world events must always take precedence. [01:10:24] Speaker 2: So, you are claiming that I have some floating abstraction. Some abstraction which doesn't actually pertain to reality. Yes. [01:10:31] Speaker 4: Is that your claim? [01:10:32] Speaker 2: No. [01:10:33] Speaker 4: Okay, well… Don't get me wrong. I definitely believe that it pertains to reality. But I don't believe that… Okay, so it does. There's no point in relating to concrete. Hold on. Hold on. I don't believe it pertains to the resolution and the significance of the impact of this debate. [01:10:48] Speaker 2: Whether it… So there is no floating abstraction in my point. Can we just get that clear? [01:10:52] Speaker 4: There is no floating abstraction in your point. I don't know what that means. [01:10:57] Speaker 2: Right, so it's irrelevant whether I can relate it to a concrete. So a floating abstraction is an abstraction without a concrete referent. So it would be something like infinity. There is no actual infinity. There's a potential infinity, but no actual infinity. So if I said infinity is over there, it would make no sense. [01:11:16] Speaker 3: I'm not following. Say it one more time. [01:11:20] Speaker 2: So if I said there's an infinity over here. Okay. That doesn't make any sense, because infinity means larger than any specific quantity, which means of no specific quantity, which means it doesn't exist. It is no specific quantity. So I can't say there is an infinity over there, an actual infinity. It's a floating abstraction. It doesn't have a concrete referent. [01:11:39] Speaker 3: What's your point? [01:11:41] Speaker 2: So my point is that that is when it's fine to bring up like, hey, you're just speaking in the abstract. You're not speaking in the particular. It's like, well, the only way that is relevant is if I am in some way having a floating abstraction. Then my abstractions don't actually refer to reality. [01:11:58] Speaker 4: It's okay. Okay. Here's my response to this. You have one minute left and then we're going. It's closing. This is my response for how to the floating abstraction argument. There is no way to determine whether or not something is a floating abstraction if you have no world example or historical or empirical evidence to compare it to in today's debate. [01:12:17] Speaker 2: But are you claiming that I'm making some floating abstraction? You can't just say maybe you did at some point. Hold on. You have to point to a specific one that I'm making. [01:12:25] Speaker 4: So hold on. Throughout the entirety of this debate, you've been talking about this analogy and these abstractions, and you've been saying that you do not need to bring up real world evidence because you're saying it has application and it has bearing to what's going on. [01:12:47] Speaker 2: I'm saying you can't demonstrate it doesn't. I'm saying the burden lies on you to demonstrate that I'm making some floating abstraction, that there is a floating abstraction within my claim. You need to point to a specific one. I can't be left there to sift through my entire argument and say, well, is this one a floating abstraction? You say, no. Is this one a floating abstraction? No. You need to point to the error I'm making. Right? In this case, a floating abstraction. If you think I'm making a floating abstraction- [01:13:09] Speaker 4: The error you're making is assuming that your analogy applies in the real world. So you think it doesn't? [01:13:14] Speaker 2: Which one? [01:13:15] Speaker 4: Which one is the floating abstraction? We don't have the means in this debate to determine that it does or doesn't because you have brought no evidence to the table. [01:13:26] Speaker 2: Which one is the floating abstraction? Which one is the floating abstraction? Tell me which one. And I can relate it to a real world example. [01:13:30] Speaker 4: Okay, list them again and I'll tell you. [01:13:32] Speaker ?: Which one? [01:13:33] Speaker 2: So my argument is humanity should prosper. Economic growth means greater prosperity. Environmental protection means lower prosperity. Therefore, economic growth should be prioritized over environmental protection. Where is the floating abstraction? [01:13:44] Speaker 4: The floating abstraction, I disagree with. Environmental protection does not lead to prosperity. [01:13:50] Speaker 2: Which claim in there? Which concept within there? Just list the claims. List the claims. List the claims. So humanity should prosper, one. [01:13:58] Speaker 4: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Within the one that I already chose as not being an abstraction. [01:14:05] Speaker 2: So I said environmental protection means lower prosperity. Which concept in that sentence? Tell me the context in the sentence. And then I'll tell you which one. So there's the environment. There's protection. There's prosperity. Okay, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. Which one of these is floating abstraction? Okay. [01:14:21] Speaker 4: So the floating abstraction is the fact that there is no evidence that environmental protection does not lead to prosperity because there has been no references to the environment or to something that has happened in the environment in your whole entire case or under that point. That's a floating abstraction because there are no ties to the real world inside of that point. Which concept is the floating abstraction there? I just told you what my opinion was. [01:14:48] Speaker 3: I don't think you understand what floating abstraction is. I don't think so either. [01:14:54] Solo Requiem: Hey, we're going over time. So we're ready. Let's go over to closing arguments. Zulu, whenever you want. You got five minutes. Go ahead. [01:15:03] Speaker ?: All right. [01:15:04] Speaker 2: So I will reiterate that my argument still stands. I have demonstrated, one, that humanity should prosper. Two, that economic growth means greater prosperity. Three, that environmental protection means lower prosperity. And four, therefore, that economic growth should be prioritized over environmental protection. Furthermore, Danikin's case still ends up reducing down into this single core point. He's getting mad that I am focusing only on one point of his argument. This is the most fundamental point. Everything else rests upon this. Everything he is saying about sometimes we need to restrict economic growth. Sometimes we shouldn't be going out there and taking things. All of these points, they all break down, as I showed in cross-examination, they all break down into this claim that if you go beyond, if you have too much economic growth, sometimes you're violating a collective property right held by other people. I have demonstrated that this leads to a contradiction. Contradictions are false. So Danikin's entire case falls. Until he's able to resolve this contradiction in some way, or come up with some new reason why man's prosperity should be limited, then his entire case is completely moot. Whether he is getting mad that I'm not having enough real world examples or enough empirical evidence is entirely irrelevant to this case. Again, this is an abstract claim. It is not the claim about some particular instance. It is a claim about every possible instance. It is a claim about abstracts, not particulars. Yes, he made the claim that abstractions are fluffy. I am saying that particular, you know, like concrete instances, they're fluffy, right? They don't matter. It's the complete other way around. We don't demonstrate this point by pointing to a bunch of different instances. Where so-called economic growth was bad. That does not establish his case at all. He needs to establish the general case. Because it's a general contention. It's not a particular contention. It's not a contention about whether Chernobyl good or bad. It's a contention about whether economic growth should be prioritized over environmental protection. Again, general. And I have made my general argument which stands and his general argument which falls into an irreconcilable contradiction. And with that, I think I'm done. [01:17:20] Speaker ?: Okay. Then I can, whenever you're ready, I'll start your timing. Alright, I'm ready. [01:17:20] Speaker 3: So, I'd like to begin the conclusion of this debate with a quote from the late Robert J. Oppenheimer. [01:17:25] Speaker ?: Theory will only take you so far. [01:17:27] Speaker 4: Throughout the entirety of this debate, it's been an ongoing discussion of whether or not we are debating abstractions or whether or not we are debating the real world. Now, I think that we should be taking a step back and we should be examining in order to make a determine of whether or not these abstractions are true, we should compare them to what happens in the real world. My opponent's entire case is based on economic growth leading to prosperity, just based on these abstractions. However, we have my whole case which shows specific instances of the real world where this doesn't happen. Because we have this evidence, because we have all this empirical evidence which has not been challenged as true, we have evidence to prove that my opponent's theory and his abstractions are true. And his abstraction is actually false. Economic growth does not lead to prosperity when it's valued over environmental protection. This is what the crux of the evidence in the debate has shown and this is why I urge you to vote negative. I'm going to reiterate some of my arguments. Once again, corporate propaganda, our minds are part of the environment and when you value economic growth over the environment, you compromise and you allow individuals to pillage those resources at the expense of individuals. The dust pool. An instance of where people were incentivized to try to make as much food as possible in a short period of time in order to bolster the economy and as a result, their farms dried up. Just another example of environmental protection needing to be valued first in the real world. And finally, I just want to reiterate my observation number one, my burden of proof. So in order to successfully negate the resolution, I don't have to prove that environmental protection needs to be prioritized all the time. I just need to prove that environmental protection needs to be prioritized most of the time. And I believe that the negative has done this through historical and empirical evidence which has impact that spans all of humanity and will continue to impact humanity as we enter into this new era of AI and the information age. And I can only hope that humanity will continue to make decisions to prioritize sustainability and economic growth or sustainability and environmental protection so that they may indeed have economic growth in the days of tomorrow. [01:20:31] Speaker 3: Thank you. [01:20:32] Solo Requiem: All right, and with that, that not only concludes this debate, but for the Coliseum tournament, I will be notifying both individuals and guests who won up in a week after our justice reviewed panel. Following that, as said earlier, second place will get $50 while first place we get $150. And that should be all for this. Thank you all for tuning in and I'll see you next time. Have a good one.