Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

To begin, I would like to note that my opponent leaves us with no value or criterion with which to uphold the negative ground. Please note this when judging the round, as it does prevent a true LD debate from occurring, the format for which I requested. However, as my opponent says, this is his first debate, so this is the only time I will make note of it. I will move to attack my opponent's contentions, and move on to rebuild my own case. Against my opponents first contention, Humans Cannot Claim Ownership for All the Animals, I will say that it is untopical. As my opponent agrees with my definitions, let's look to them. Anthropocentrism, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is "considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe." Does this in any way, shape, or form, suggest that humans own the animals? Of course not. The key idea of anthropocentrism is the preservation of humanity through the use of the resources around us. However, if this does not convince you, then consider Biblical text: God placed humans as the stewards of the world. Further, if you look at this through the processes of evolution, humanity has, somehow, gained the ability of complex reason and the understanding of right and wrong - or good and evil. This is a very "special skill" one that makes it our duty, if you will, to take care of the animals. Again, though, I shouldn't have to attack this at all, because it isn't topical. Next, against my opponents second contention, It's Natural for Humans to be Equal, I would again argue that it is untopical to the resolution on the definition of biocentrism that my opponent also agreed to, which simply states that all things have intrinsic value, not that all things should be equal. Further, if we're to actually look at this contention with any validity, we an see that it is simply an attack on human splurge..which, in all actuality, is not at all anthropocentric. The anthropocentric view, along with my value of the positional good, could not be achieved if humans simply wasted and wasted and did not contribute in some way...which they do. Humans are beginning the slow process of writing their wrongs, and becoming more environmentally conscious, in the attempt to preserve human existence. This is anthropocentric, and not at all biocentric. Let us now move to my case, which I will show to be the key case - not to mention the one to vote for - in this debate. First, my value - The Positional Good, remains unrefuted, and by the rules of LD debate, it stands. My criterion of ethical egoism is attacked by my opponent...not at all. Yes, my opponent ignores the idea behind ethical egoism altogether, instead going off on a tangent on my commentary following the definition of ethical egoism. However, ethical egoism does not mean that we should bow down to the dragonflies, as my opponent puts it, or that they should bow to us. In fact, ethical egoism doesn't have to do whatsoever with how one species should treat another; instead, as I show in my case, it has to do with acting in the interest of one's self...or in this interest, in one's species. My criterion stands. Against my observation, my opponent doesn't care, which means we should have moved on. However, he continues to call it "unrelated to the topic" and that my point is "completely invalid". Now, I don't know about that. If he cracked a dictionary when refuting this observation, he would have noticed that the two words are in fact written as antonyms. Now, this observation was written in an attempt to create clash within the debate,in case my opponent tried to say that they could coincide with one another, which he does not. So, let's not even look at my observation, because it doesn't matter in this round because the issue it's preventing didn't occur. Let's move on to my first contention, Anthropocentrism Improves the Human Condition, where my opponent spends his argument on attacking my source card. However, this argument is false. The entire card is anthropocentric in nature. By using our resources in increased rates, it shows that we're doing so to sustain ourselves, which is completely anthropocentric. Then, to counter my opponents "save the zoo creatures" plea, I offer the following source - http://www.projectview.org... - which discusses multiple reasons for why we have zoos, including conservation, animal reproduction, education about animals for the populace, and research to not only save the animals, but humans also. Also, turn the argument at the end of this argument...that is, use it against him. If the island that bred the dodos had the population wiped out, how is that the fault of the zoo system, or humankind? If they died without human intervention, then it was obviously evolutionary or natural decline of the natural population. It is because of the loss of species like the dodo bird that humans have created endangered species lists, to prevent more extinction. This is for the benefit of humanity, also, because more species equals more resources...essentially, humans conserve so that we have more to use. And there's nothing wrong with it, either. My opponent employs a similar argument against my second contention, Biocentrist Thought is Flawed. Because of this, he simply proves my point...that is, that other organisms are means to an end, because they are not ends to themselves. My opponent is further mistaken about antibiotics...canines, felines, and many other mammals are treated with antibiotics to fight bacterial infection. The argument my opponent makes about selling leathers and poaching may be true, because that might not be the right thing to do, but it's irrelevant, because doing that is not necessarily anthropocentric, because it goes against our human policy of conservation, as discussed in my last paragraph. Please refer back to that to refute this argument. Finally, my third contention, Humanity Has an Obligation to be Egoist, is attacked with much of the same, even though he misquotes my tagline and misconstrues the entire contention. Again, referring back to everything else that I have said in this rebuttal so far, it is not anthropocentric to kill off species of animals for pleasure. It leaves us with less resources, and it is wasteful. It is not in the best interests of humankind. It is not showing humankind's intrinsic value, and is therefore not anthropocentric. So, to recap, my opponent's contentions are untopical and misconstrue the definitions of anthropocentrism and biocentrism he agrees with; my value wasn't attacked, and my criterion wasn't attacked directly. My opponent attacks my observation unsuccessfully, even though he didn't need to. My opponent attacks all of my contentions with the same idea of "let's save the animals!" though the idea in itself is anthropocentric more than it's anthropocentric. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.