Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

I would like to begin by apologizing to voters, not only for my behavior, but also for that of my opponent, it is certainly not befitting the respect the realm of debate deserves. I'll move down the flow, addressing all arguments my opponent made, try to point out any arguments that might have been dropped, and give a quick wrap-up at the end. My opponent does not show how morality is subjective, instead he provides a non-responsive distraction by talking about how I say almost all humans believe that human survival to be the positional good. Good can mean more than good as in pleasurable, it can also mean an item. Human survival is the item that has positionality, or preference, over other forms of life. He drops the argument regarding normative ethics, and how no value can be universally achieved. Extending this, however, we can see that there is a difference between complete subjectivity like morality, and reasonable objective ethics, like the positional good. I "opted out" of addressing my opponent's Nazi analogy because a) I successfully responded to the Tibetan monks argument made alongside it, and b) by doing that, I extended the same idea to the Holocaust. Against his value criterion - I think that's what it is - I will address all arguments. 1. My opponent neglects to look at my observation, which addresses the issue of the anthropocentrism definition. Please look to my observation for that clarification. I do not say that anthropocentrism means five different things, nor am I making bad arguments. I also state that I can achieve my opponent's criterion through my own case, an argument my opponent missed. 2. By understanding that humans are the most significant entity in the universe, it can be understood that we have to protect that significance. When humans do something that is detrimental to themselves, or harms humanity, it is not anthropocentric. 3. Again, the diamond mines example is not relevant. While it is tragic that African women are raped, that is not considered anthropocentric. Once more, my opponent should shift the blame of that on the rapists, not on the anthropocentric view. Harms: Again, these harms do not apply to my case. Sexism, oppression, diamond mines, monks, and Nazis: all of these things put together, while perhaps creating a very twisted practical joke that not even Rahm Emmanuel would laugh at, are not effects or examples of anthropocentrism, because they act in ways that are detrimental to humanity. My opponent's case lacks ground and falls - metaphorically speaking - because it is premised upon these harms that I have disproved. C1: Ok, my opponent's argument here is a little befuddling. First off, the one dated card comes from the 70's, which makes it more than a little outdated. Further, our society today is not patriarchal; instead, women and men are given equal opportunities. Continuing on, how is this anthropocentric? It is detrimental to the human race, undermining the significance of all humans and raising up only a particular sect. Onto the rain forest argument, this is not anthropocentric either. If we are using more than we have to, then we aren't preserving. Humans will need resources in the future if we hope to survive, so preservation is anthropocentric. My opponent does not refute the fact that his Nazi example is unfair, so cross-apply that through. Let's go back to the Tibetan Monks. First off, they are anthropocentric. They have to be, if they survive. They pluck tea leaves to make tea, they harvest vegetables. If they were true biocentrists, they wouldn't touch anything. They would die, leaving the world much worse off. I for one love the Dalai Lama, he's an interesting fellow. Again, his cards are outdated, so don't even look to them, toss them out, they're useless in this round. Next, my opponent says that I don't show that when we see something as significant, no harms result. Well, people are always going to die. It's natural. People are going to mismanage and act improperly. However, does this disprove the anthropocentric viewpoint? No. Humans should still be considered the most significant entity because they can reason, because they can think. My opponent tries to make the argument that my entire case revolves around using resources. While that is true, that does not mean we cannot use resources properly. Again, to misuse resources is to not be anthropocentric. C2: I completely addressed everything my opponent said in his second contention, so therefore I guess my opponent missed that. Cross-apply those arguments back to this speech. My opponent once again misses the boat when he argues that degradation occurs in the anthropocentric system. However, NONE of this is proved in my opponent's case. Instead, he shows us the horrors of sexism, racism, beating up Buddhists, etc., none of which is anthropocentric. I don't know how many times I have to stress this to get my opponent to understand where I'm coming from. V: Positional Good. 1. I still don't know if this human dignity argument is his value or his criterion, but I know it can't be both. My opponent mistakenly asserts that I am not a real LD debater, though I would say that his way of debating is the questionable method. If any LD debaters read this, go through his case, try to flow it. Tell me if you got what I got. A mess. Further, just because he makes a lot of arguments does not mean he is providing value and criterion clash, which is necessary for a valid decision. 2. Valuing human dignity does allow for human survival, which is why I flowed this value/criterion/whatever-it-is to my case. The desirability standard for human survival is objective, look back to earlier arguments for this. My opponent does not outweigh me in anything. 3. This argument does not threaten the resolution whatsoever, not sure where that came from. Further, we must protect human survival, which is only achievable in the Pro world. 4. Again, this comparison doesn't make sense because we aren't mistreating humans, we're appropriating resources. 5. Once again, old source, b"ut also, if men and women eat the same food, are they both not being anthropocentric? This can be applied to most aspects of life for both sexes. Again, the sexist K is non-topical, because it lacks any sense. Criterion: Ethical Egoism 1. Addressed several times. 2. Humans don't always have to make moral decisions to be moral agents. It just means they have the capacity, which places us above the animals. 3. "I'd say that famine is man made and no we haven't adapted because millions die not only in Africa but in developed countries as well from starvation." My opponent said that. He's contradicting himself. Again, I do show the Dust Bowl incident, and since my opponent provides no evidence, we can conclude that man cannot be blamed for famine. C1: Didn't say we couldn't use resources, I said we have to use them responsibly. That's still anthropocentric. These things are anthropocentric failures because they have hurt mankind ultimately. C2: This card keeps getting brought up, it wasn't clearly quoted and the impacts are snowball and can be disregarded. If my opponent can be witty, so can I. Drops: Caste system argument, I win that. Observation, destroys my opponent's low blows on my anthro definition. Social Classes argument In conclusion, you should vote Pro on argument/case structure, on drops, on conduct, on argument success, and on overall understanding of the topic. I have successfully shown how all of my opponent's harms are not relevant to the topic, how my opponent's evidence is outdated, and how Rahm Emmanuel shouldn't make jokes about the mentally handicapped...no, I didn't prove that, but I ought to have. Anyway, vote Pro. Thank you.