Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

Language has nothing to do with rationality. As I have said time and time again Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth. My ability to think about what I did, why I did it, and how im going to fix gives me rationality. And rationality is the only way to determine rationality. Language doesn't give rationality and I never said it did so for the record this argument in no way attacks my position. Moreover language is a way that we all communicate and interact and survive. Im not saying that is anyless true for animals or Chimps or whatever. But it is NOT the way to determine rationality. Nor a way for my opponent to try and uphold Biocentrism. _Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational"_ Not having morality doesn't make you wicked. Babies aren't seen as wicked though they have no morality yet. The key word is yet. They have the potential to be as well as all those other humans who may not have rationality for a pleura of reasons. So this argument is provocative word play that was drawn from an inaccurate conclusion of what I said—Once Again. _Note to reader*** (Be aware children, in this debate I have made fake quotes to what I presume is what a normal "Anthropocentrist" would think about in certain scenarios.ha Ha HA)***___ This statement only is enough to vote affirmative. By my opponents own admission all of his scenarios and quotes and essentially evidence holds no water whatsoever. _Next part to fully understand why apes have culture we must first understand what culture really IS. As I said before culture is nothing more than common social trait's small (such as style of eating food) to large (slavery, social structure). But apparently my opponent (lol I wonder why language makes it sound like I own you) has continued to disagree with the obvious to try to make culture sound better than it actually IS (and in most cases culture can be a negative). Just because what you define culture as doesn't fit the civilized standard is beside the POINT._ What's the relevance of this argument? It still doesn't refute how I firmly believe culture has no bearing on Morality. My only burden is to prove humans are uniquely rational therefore the only moral beings. Similarities could be down to the 99th percent and rationality would still be what evades our biological counterparts. _Ok Icey4321 I am not arguing that chimpanzees are more intelligent, nor am I using that quote to mislead you or other people into thinking that there is hardly any difference. I am trying to argue morality and I believe that your bias is blocking you from accepting that chimpanzees have culture, even as primitive as may seem to the observer. Well I strongly disagree with this. Though my opponent isn't arguing chimps and other animals are more intelligent he IS arguing that they have equal value by his egalitarian biocentric views. By saying that he is equating the life of a puppy dog with that of a child. And this is why that ethical system is flawed. AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!)._ Why cant I? Maybe you cant wake up in the morning a discern out of all the reasons not to run outside naked. But me and a majority of the human population can. And if there is some type of illness that prevents you from looking at the pro's and con's all I can say is that I don't handle the little grey areas that are one in a million or not a majority. _{TRUE OR FAILS} Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do!_ They eat to survive just like I do BUT that is natural and one of those things that we have to do no matter what. The Worm couldn't decide not to eat. He doesn't even have a grasp on why he needs to. _Does just because humans have more complex ways (different) in getting food like hunting gathering digesting in a huge stomachs, fighting for food, sharing and distributing food which leads to social systems like hunter gathers, kindship relations, monarchs, fascists, etc. Then when we look at the worm all he has to do is put his mouth in the ground and decompose food. Now because the system in getting food for the human is more complex does this than make the human free of nature or what is called "free will", No it's just another process with the same undelying mechanisms Consumption and Reproduction is what it comes down TO (Not god not civilization, not even capitalism)._ The complexity of a thing has noting to do with anything. Rationalizing actually isn't really complicated. It can happen in a split second without us realizing. There are though cognitive capabilities that our brains have that allow us to rationalize. Okay, A lion can run faster than me, it doesn't make him better. I am smarter and have more intellect than a doggy but that doesn't make me better. The only way to show my superiority to the animal and plant kind is by my moral status. The only way to determine my moral status is by my ability to discern the content of morality. If animals don't know what it is how can they have it? Its not like a stomach. The have stomachs and probably don't grasp the concept but they still have it. Morality is not like that. It is a concept that must have been thought up by HUMANS. Animals could probably careless. _____Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is SUPREME<3 ie, CIVILIZED RATIONAL(even though this view in most cases is irrational).______ Its wonderful how my opponent just mentioned civilized rationale and I have not the slightest idea how it shows biocentrism superior. Does my opponent even mention Biocentrism once in his case? He has argued defensively (And failed I might add) but never offensively. So moreover my value still stands because it is the only way to discern these two ethical theories. All of my justifications for morality are intact for my opponent never attacked them. My burden was proven by the fact my opponent didn't attack my contentions that prove it true. Which are follows NO BELIEFS as supported by Stephen Stich and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and INSTINCT IN PLACE OF RATIONALITY as supported by Ruth Millikan and Merlin Donald. The only thing that my opponents position will lead to is dehumanizing the human population as denying us our moral worth which is imperative to being human. What this means for the round. _____1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.______ You have none so what is this argument even pertaining to. ________2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.____ HaHa funny play on words. Childish but funny nonetheless. In my first speech I give the impact of Biocentrism dehumanizing the population by taking away the only thing that really divides us from the rest and makes us superior. That sure sounds like a reason to vote AFF. ____3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative._____ Okayy do you realize what you just said? You know your neg right? That means you argue for Biocentrism as the resolution indicates. So yes this is all evidence for the AFF lol. Obviously readers you can vote Aff because my Opponent has no idea what he's arguing for anyways.