Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

[Definitions and Resolution Clarification] The Definitions for today currently are Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings. Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. I did not receive the chance to explain in my Second speech, but today we are dealing with a comparative Resolution. That Means we are here to compare Which of these theories is better. In Doing this you must do two things. 1. Provide Arguments or Basis for your Side-In order to have reasons why your side is better 2. Follow the definition you have used to describe your side-so you and your opponent can argue on the same topic You will see the relevance in me explaining this later on in the round. [Arguments] First I will Address the Attacks made on my arguments. I will be quoting only some parts. I ask the judges not to take away points from me for what my opponent said. I will address many of his arguments no matter how long or short. Ct.1-Anthropocentrism is Just Mankind's Way to Survive in the World "So they're not special adaptations they're just adaptations that have happened over time in order for them to survive. " The Major Attack Against this Contention is that Survival of the fittest happened over time and that most adaptations aren't special, these adaptations just happened so a species can survive. Well, So what is not special about Surviving. If you ask me then I would call anything special if it allowed me to survive. My opponent assume that this Argument is about evolution theories, it is not. It is about how humanity values itself above common plants or animal I Fail to see how this Argument relates to this Contention It does not attack the contention itself, it only explain that survival of the Fittest happens over time. And that Adaptations are not special. Ct.2-Anthropocentrism Will Protect the Environment "low pollution in one country doesn't mean there is low pollution in others and it does not eliminate the problem of pollution. " That Was the only argument against this Contention Now first Looking at the source of . http://www.eea.europa.eu... This Agency Is Addressing all of Europe(A Usually heavy pollution area) and showing that the pollution is lessening. Second, We Are being anthropocentric in looking for a way to solve pollution. Why, you might ask? Because Humanity wants to stick around longer. It is only Recently that we have begun to search for ways, but we are thinking of ourselves in the long-run making us anthropocentric. Now This is uniquely special to my case because my opponents side cannot protect the environment using the definition of Biocentrism. Ct.3. Biocentrism Effectively Cripples humankind's progress Now Let me explain this Contention a bit more, this definition was based off of my opponents definitions of Biocentrism which is Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things The Key phrase in this definition is "needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things" This is mainly what my Subpoints were about. If my Opponent does not understand he must look at his own definition first. Subpoint A-Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive My Opponent did not understand this point clearly. This point states that Mankind's Needs(Eat, Shelter, Sleep) cannot be met with biocentrism and this ultimately Destroys mankind. My Opponent attack this with an argument about Moral Agents and Patents Now all moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our duties to humans. Meaning the way we act toward anything in nature is devired from our anthropocentrism And I also fail to see how Biocentrism grants these morals. Subpoint B-Using biocentrism takes away the Significance of humanity Intelligence My Opponent attacks this contention stating "If your argument is based on humans being great because of intelligence then it fails. There are some animals that are smarter than humans like a parrot or dolphin until the human grows to a certain age. " Now First, in this debate Anytime I am saying humans then I mean as a race. And Secondly Its not about how smart some humans are at a point, this contention address the discoveries that Humanity has found. This point is not about Who should be saved or not. This Point is about how humanity has accomplished many feats and biocentrism takes away these feats. [Opponent Case] My Opponent did not actually state a case. He just attacked my points with weak arguments that were usually one sentence long. So the only thing I can attack is the Biocentrism outlook based upon his definition. Which is basically the definition he must abide by the rest of the round. So what does his view of biocentrism state? What is Does say Human Needs cannot be valued above any other living things Humanity Needs are reduced if considered important than any other living things(Plants, Animal, Bacteria) What is Doesn't say Biocentrism will grant Humanity a way to Survive Biocentrism will protect the environment Biocentrism Grants Moral Status Biocentrism will allow all Species(Not Including humanity) to survive My Opponent seems to think that he has a different definition of Biocentrism when he actually doesn't [Conclusion] Today, You, the judges have seen a weak attempt at supporting one theory and a attempt at attacking another theory. My Opponent today has not offered any case and in his attacks he tries to carry attacks with a different definition it seems. But, as you can see all his definition does is bash humanities' way of living. As I stated in the Second Speech the Opponent is trying to state sob stories about how humanity using anthropocentrism doesn't care for animals, and doesn't extend moral worth. But does biocentrism? I think Not. So here are some early voters in today's debate. 1. Forfeit-My Opponent has agree to let me use this as a voter 2. No Case-My Opponent has no Arguments that Support Biocentrism 3. Hardly Any Strong Attacks-My Opponent Attacks are usually one Sentence long (Please Look at contention Two) So today I urge a Pro Vote. I Now Await my Opponent