Resolved Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over biocentrism

AC ------------------ My opponent starts off his case with a circle argument, saying the anthropocentric view preserves the environment because we as humans depend on them. This in itself should shows he puts more value in Biocentrism than in Anthropocentrism. My opponent goes on to state: "Anthropocentrism does not promote the senseless killing of animals and living things, it only promotes the preservation of Human life." Anthropecentrism doesn't PROMOTE killing living things, it ALLOWS it. My opponent even states in his case: "The anthropocentrist does not have a problem reconciling the domesticated landscape with the wild the way biocentrists do." My opponent doesn't explain the impacts of reconciling domesticated landscape. The Anthropocentrist justifies this because in his opinion humans are "the most significant entity of the universe". They do not mind destroying wildlife because it further benefits humanity. My opponent even states that "Anthropocentrism does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways". In the Anthropocentric world, they do not strive to harm the environment, but without any moral rules set to protect the environment, the likelihood of them not actually hurting the environment is minuscule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT side note- My opponent asked for LD structure. LD is a values debate. The whole point is to achieve a set value. My opponent provides no value, thus 1) Not achieving anything in this debate. 2) Not meeting LD structure or the pre-burden's of the round. 3) Being extremely abusive to the Negative because how do I fulfill my pre-burden to refute his value without being given a value. So, already, vote Negative. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- His criterion of "preservation of human life", but goes on to define it as: "believing the human life ought to be valued above that of an animal's life. Nothing compares in importance to a humans life, because humans have the ability to feel and understand pain, death, and emotional sadness. Every human on this earth is someone's child, and every human is more valuable in someone's eye than that of a parasite, or bacterium." This definition would be RESPECTING human life. Once again, abusive because what do I attack? His criterion or definition. For all I know he will come up in the next round and say I didn't properly attack his criterion. Well, I have been put in the position to choose. I will refute "Preservation of human life", not "Respect of human life". I choose this, which actually helps my opponent, because his case follows the trend of preserving human life. This criterion should be downed because 1) Has no impact in this round because biocentrism, as I'll explain in my case, does not harm human life, thus nothing needs preserving. 2) No value to link to. I'll address his arguments as contentions. Argument one is contention one, etc. Contention one: Cross-apply my earlier argument: "My opponent doesn't explain the impacts of reconciling domesticated landscape. The Anthropocentrist justifies this because in his opinion humans are "the most significant entity of the universe". They do not mind destroying wildlife because it further benefits humanity. My opponent even states that "Anthropocentrism does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways". In the Anthropocentric world, they do not strive to harm the environment, but without any moral rules set to protect the environment, the likelihood of them not actually hurting the environment is minuscule." Contention two: My opponent lists off a set of authors all claiming a main claim. That biocentrism is self-contradictory and impossible to achieve. The problem here is my opponent and his authors do not understand what biocentrism is. It is not preserving all life, as my opponent wishes to do for humans in his case. It is "considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value". http://www.merriam-webster.com... So in the biocentric world, we give intrinsic value to all life. So it would make it immoral to value one over the other if they both have intrinsic value. So his contention two should be dropped, I'll later explain in more detail in my case. Contention three: This argument is about how biocentrism uses biocentric means to achieve an anthropocentric view. He doesn't back this up with any warrants, so this should fall. His only reasoning is "No sensible person can accept a value where human lives can not be considered as valuable as the life of a deadly bacteria that could decimate the population of the Earth". This itself isn't even correct. He once again misunderstands biocentrism. Biocentrism give intrinsic value to that bacteria, and values it on the same level as humans. So if it is insensible to do that, so be it. (I will now explain in my case why it is sensible). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I negate, Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over biocentrism. I agree on definitions, just add in my earlier one on Biocentrism since my opponent fails to provide one. The value to measure today's round will be Morality defined as "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong". The is the best value to theorize the effects of valuing biocentrism above anthropocentrism. Also, being the only value offered, it stands no matter what. The best standard to achieve this value is Respecting the Biosphere. In the biocentric view, all life has value. Life is all part of a community, all giving and taking. We cannot exist without one another. An animal dies for a human as food, thus upholding natural laws of the biosphere and respecting that biosphere. This is the way of nature. The thesis of my case is that one cannot value one above the other because there is no bright line between them. Without a bright line to provide superiority to one kind of life forms, it would be absolutely immoral to value one above the other. The lack of evidence is a non-issue. As the Affirmative it is my opponent's job to provide evidence. Unless he can provide evidence to support the idea of a bright line between humans and other life forms, my case stands and the only moral option will be to negate. In conclusion, I sufficiently refuted my opponents arguments and have set up my case. As customary in LD, please allow no new arguments to arise past this point. We must stick to the arguments presented in our case. My opponent has requested CX. I'm not sure how we will d this, but we can use the comment box or the next round. I personally though waive my right to CX. Thank you.