Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

If I may present my road map, I'll start with definition clash, then I will be going over the Negative case to rebuild, and then I will attack my opponent's case. Anthropocentrism- My definition comes from the Merriam Webster dictionary, verbatim. Since we do not know where my opponent's definition came from, we can only look to mine, because for all we know he could have made it up when he was typing his response. Also, heat, water, and earth are not traditionally considered to be entities, so adding the word "living" to the definition is redundant. If there is a "text-book definition", then it is mine. Biocentrism- My definition is superior. Again, we do not know where my opponent got his definition, while mine comes, again, from Merriam Webster's dictionary. Also, though my opponent was kind enough to try to preserve clash, it has already been done. Look to my observation that he dropped. Finally, to suggest that I have to prove that all things have equal value is an unfair burden on the negative. .. while leaving the affirmative with virtually all the leverage. Observation: Definition Clash My opponent dropped this, so it stands. It guarantees clash, for one, and disproves my opponent's definition of biocentrism. I do not have to prove that all living things have equal value. Instead, I just have to prove that all living things have intrinsic value. .. which I do through my value and criterion. Speaking of, my value and criterion were dropped. For any LD debaters reading this, you know that you aren't supposed to do that. The value is what I am trying to look to for the round, and the criterion achieves that value, and may be one of the most important things in the round. Because of these drops, it will be very difficult for my opponent to win the round, because I can simply cross-apply my value and criterion to any and all of my opponent's arguments. .. which I intend to do. Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself To begin, I would note that the reason this subpoint revolves around anthropocentrism because of the topic. Also, my contention tagline is that Anthropocentrism Ought Not Be Valued Above Biocentrism, which essentially shows why I would try to show why Anthropocentrism is bad in my first subpoint, and then show why Biocentrism is good in my second subpoint. Further, my opponent's Inuit argument is ungrounded, because, as a matter of fact, many Inuit believe that animals have souls that are interchangeable with those of humans', and also that animals can become human, and vice-versa. With this mystical cultural idea, they revere animals as having value comparable to that of humans. For that reason alone, anthropocentrism is flawed, because it shows that in even the most terrible and harsh conditions, biocentrism can still prevail if the populace will but acknowledge that animals and plants and other living things do have intrinsic value. Going past that, even if the Inuit do use some of the resources around them, and they must in order to survive, they realize that all things have a purpose, or utility. So cross apply my criterion, and then my value also. Finally, my opponent makes an ungrounded and illogical statement when he says that the biocentric view won't care if we lose humans or resources. However, this is untrue. Just like all other animals and plants and living things, humans are necessary to complete the circle of life, if you will. They serve their purpose effectively. So, this statement by my opponent is false. Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive To counter my opponent's first sentence, a) it is implied by the resolution that I am advocating biocentrism being better than anthropocentrism in this subpoint, and b) I did say, several times in my subpoint, that it was more encompassing and inclusive than anthropocentrism. Next, cross-apply my source from subpoint a, because it shows that anthropocentrism only produces temporary progress for humanity, where biocentrism produces a more lasting progress. Next, this entire argument is pure fallacy. Biocentrism, according to my source in this contention, simply holds that all things have value, and that all things are interdependent, not that all things have EQUAL value. Therefore, my opponent's entire ov argument falls, because my opponent has misrepresented biocentrism entirely. Now, let's move to my opponent's case. His value of preservation cannot be met universally in today's round. He is being subjective with his usage of preservation, seeking to only preserve humans and not other things, when my case clearly shows that all forms of life are interdependent and all have intrinsic value. Also, his argument that humans are "logically superior" isn't at all supported by the logic he claims to use, so his entire premise falls. Instead, we must look to my value of intrinsic teleology, that shows if things have purpose, then they have intrinsic value, proving biocentrism. Also, because my opponent dropped my value, it automatically becomes superior. His criterion of progress I will attack three ways: a) progress cannot be properly measured in my opponent's case, so it is not a weighing mechanism, and therefore not a criterion; b) anthropocentrism cannot achieve permanent progress, so he cannot uphold his value; and c) he dropped mine, so my own criterion of utility becomes the dominant weighing tool for this round. As for importance by ability, all things have ability, just in different forms. Can humans live underwater? Can they change colors to blend with their environment? Can they grow fur all over? No. So, no, humans do not have the most ability, it is shared in different ways with all things. Against my opponent's first contention, Humans are Nature's Most Important Asset Logically, I would argue that just because humans are able to reason and use logic does not make them superior; it simply makes them different. It is this supposed logic and reason that led man to believe in early years that he was the ruler of all things. This arrogance is based on supposed superiority and cannot be proven; my opponent, for example, provides no evidence of human superiority. So, turning away from anthropocentrism, let us look instead to biocentrism, which states that all things have intrinsic value. Anthropocentrism can NOT disprove this, so biocentrism is supreme. My opponent's second contention cannot be proven, but though I am a Christian and I have read the passages that my opponent is referring to, I also believe that that does not mean that we have free reign to do whatever we want to the animals. Just because we were created in God's image and given dominion does not make us superior. Again, it simply makes us different. God's message is that of love, and if we, the supposed "rulers" of all other things act in a way that is selfish, then we are defying God. I agree with the tagline of my opponent's third contention, so turn this argument against him. Anthropocentrism cannot create permanent progress, and ends up hurting humanity, as I show in my second subpoint. There is no "key unit" in this system, because all things work together to keep the system running. When one piece of the system works too hard, it breaks down; in this same way, if humanity supposes to be the superior being, then it will eventually fall. Keeping this in mind, I encourage a negative ballot.