On defense trying to defend the extinction of species during deforestation, I know my team has practically lost if the prosecution has done their research but what points/ideas can I bring up to put up a fight. SOS
If the other side can do their own research, why can't you?
>>17206152
If your best defense comes from an imageboard you're fucked anyway. Go do your job and do the research on your own.
>>17206157
>>17206176
We have and are pleading insanity and negligence, other than disconnection from nature and a bit of "affluenza" theres not much that may be able to push people to our side
>>17206209
>are pleading insanity and negligence
What?
>>17206224
They are trying to prove reckless endangerment
>>17206247
Why would someone plead insanity AND negligence though? That just doesn't make any sense
>>17206253
Can't say innocent, they have statistics
>>17206264
What the fuck are you on about?
>>17206253
Just insanity*
>>17206269
How does insanity fit into the issue of extinction of species during deforestation?
One could argue that humans will always need resources and the species that can't adapt to human presence will die out. Working to preserve them could be a waste of resources better spent on othrr things like reducing human suffering (especially starvation), improving infrastructure, or whatever other concerns you can think of. Resources are limited and populations are growing. Should we throw humans under the bus for the sake of animals?
I don't agree with this, personally, but this is an argument that can be made.
