Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

I guess just starting from the top... On his attempted response against the moral oblig don't let him try to kick this, because he says it's subjective so we can't use it to try to achieve a standard. However on his 2 response to his V he says it's what almost all says is good, is that not subjective as well? What "good" is? You can apply this also to him trying to opt out of the answering the Nazism analogy. His only response to my V/C is to "turn" it. 1- he apparently thinks his definition really means about 5 different things, he says "By negating anthropocentrism, he is negating the fact that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value." I'd hoped that my opponent not make random bad arguments, but oh well. Nowhere in his definition of Anthro does it say ANYTHING about intrinsic value, scratch this. 2-"I achieve this standard through my case, because I am advocating human significance, thereby ensuring human dignity." Kick this as well because he never says how just because you say humans are significant you ensure their dignity will be valued, no evidence, no turn. My V/C still stands first voter. He says when humans are harmed its not anthropocentric....he never states this in the AC and never supports it. This is a random claim with no warrant. 2- look to his definition, says nothing about having to make sure no humans are harmed 3- Diamond mines not only lead to the raping of the Earth, but African women as well Example/Harms still apply to AC, second voter. I don't understand how sexism, oppression, Diamond mines, attacking Tibetan Buddhist Monks, and Nazis doesn't show flaws, but apparently I have no ground to stand on which is ok because I'm sitting. To my C1- Putting women at the level of animals is chauvinistic, The two cards talk about how humanities treatment of animals lead to the sexism towards women. I'm not calling women animals, you're treating them likewise in Anthro. The two cards explain it really clearly, and they go unrefuted, 3rd voter. Humans are going outside what they need to survive, i.e. tearing down forests to build towers for your phone's 3G network. Amazon forest example applies here as well. Next he says the Nazi's example is unfair, no response again apply it to the AC. To the Tibetan Buddhist Monks, this is proof you don't have to be Anthro to survive. As well as proves that Anthro mindsets lead to persecution of those viewed as having inferior values as described by the Karen J. Warren card. Also the Sheila Collins card tells you that when humans view themselves as superior because of rationality what harms that results, 4th voter 2- since Buddhist Monks are of soundness of mind and completely rational beings no human has to subscribe to Anthro for survival this goes unrefuted, 5th voter He says see his definition to prove that humans won't be harmed in Anthro, he fails to ever show that just because you see something as significant, no harms result. Cross Apply the 1 & 2 responses I made to his arguments against my V/C. Next he says showing how not using natural resources leads to humans benefits in Anthro, when his entire case talks about using up natural resources. There's no real response to my C2 and shows that not using up resources at your every whim can help individuals, not Anthro, 6th voter. He says we shouldn't degrade humans so we should be Anthro, when all my examples and evidence I give you says this degradation occurs in Anthro. Not sure, what he is thinking when writing this response. To his V 1- I have no value, yet he refutes it at the top of rebuttal this is trash kick it as well. He says it's bad, any REAL LD'ers know I could've gone direct refutation and it be just as classic LD as any. I gave him about 4 responses to every arguments=plenty of clash. To the 2- I told you how survival is completely non-unique in the NC so again he never tells you why Valuing Human Dignity won't allow for human survival he achieves no weight off this impact. Again he contradicts himself by saying we can't determine moral standards or obligations, yet we can set up standards of desirability? 7th voter, he has no offensive weight, I outweigh on every level including impacts because of strength, length and probability. 3- So we should go outside the realm of the resolution and start applying completely random threats to the resolution to support your case? Alright, I already told you above why just because you recognize significance doesn't mean unique survival, as such will not only occur but flourish when you value Human Dignity, again because of the impacts achieved discussed in the NC, 8th voter. His last little response is to Bio not the NC, kick it. 4-The example is very realistic and directly applies to the AC still because he never tells you why it doesn't just that it's unfair? 5-It's completely topical the card again tells you how the treatment of animals has translated to sexism, don't let him try to opt out of this he's failed to respond it still applies to the AC, 9th voter. His Criterion 1- Already addressed this twice 2- yea humans are capable of taking moral actions doesn't mean they do. He can't moral ground if people are taking immoral actions, he never proves that just because you're an agent that leads to direct action, still no ground in the round 3- I didn't say it was solely man made, but in most cases it is and he never refutes this. Lawls, my arguments don't apply to Anthro when you try to change your definition multiple times kid. C1-So when we use resources it's not Anthro, alright. You contradicted yourself again. -how are they failures? You say humans are superior because of intelligence and such, this directly shows how just because you can make things that go boom it makes you moral, or good. No weight still. C2- the Sheila Collins card tells you why when you use things as means to ends solely what harms occur, he's not clever or "punny," it's just embarrassing, I don't agree with Anthro in the least bit, you all know this, this is just silly and frankly insulting. Oblig still stands and he's still yet to provide a warrant, 10th voter. All ten voters i've showed are clear and concise reasons to vote Neg, my V/C never goes refuted and outweighs on every level of impact, as well as he simply has no offensive weight for why we should employ Anthro as a policy other than for survival which I showed was non-unique, and occurs when Valuing Human Dignity, he never refutes this. You can negate on face for these two main reasons in addition to the several I provided above. Vote Neg, appreciate it chaps.