Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

As my opponent asks I will use common LD form but my evidence may lean toward sourceless logical arguments. Definitions Anthropocentrism- considering humans to be the most significant living entity in the universe ---Better than opponents because his/her definition implies that humans are more important than non-life things such as (eg heat, water, earth). My value applies to only living things which is the common connotation of the word. The assumption of the Negative team that the definition of the word should be that assuming that humans are the only things of value is a)illogical as it is not the text-book definition. b) also illogical as it is a crude interpretation of the word. The Neg stated they wanted an debate and using a skewed definition of any word would destroy the possibility of an educational debate. Ought- (meet) Value- (meet) Biocentrism- considering all life forms to be of equal value ---My definition is the most common and also allow for a clear line between the two definition. LD is a morals debate and it is illogical to debate whether one thing should be valued above another if both things are considered to be somewhat related. This definition preserves room for a better clash. ATTACKS ON NEG CASE SUBPOINT 1 First of all the Negs attack has the mindframe that where there is an athropocentric view point there is the destruction of nature. It is unfair to assume that because we consider humans higher than any other living entity that we destroy that other entity for our own gain. For example, Eskimos live in the Arctic, an exrtremely harsh environment. Their anthropocentric view is what keeps them alive and they have not excessively used any resources so as to doom their own future. Also, the entire argument against Aff in this point is from an anthropocentric perspective. Neg states that by using an anthropocentric views we will destroy humans, but this is insignificant when viewed through the biocentric eye. Because there is so much life humans are not a significant loss. Also, nature as a whole does not care about its loss of resources. This whole argument is based on anthropocentrism itself. SUBPOINT 2 This entire says that biocentrism is better but it fails to say what it is better than. This is because it the Neg team believes biocentrism is better for US to survive. The viewpoint of the Neg is a destructive one leading to no human progress. This viewpoint brings us down to the level of trees (unmoving, unable to think, to reason, to progress) instead of looking at our obvious worth. Biocentrism is basically like holding a BB gun in the same level you would hold a nuclear weapon. If humans adopted this view either a) everything on the planet would be considered extremely dangerous and human freedom would have to be leveled to that of a tree (once again unmoving, unable to think, to reason, to progress) to insure safety;;;; or b) nothing would be considered dangerous and there would be unlimited freedom. Even the smallest conflict amongst two things could easily turn into a war. This is obviously destructive mind frame and is illogical not only for human beings but for nature as well. AFF CASE The thesis of this case is that every living thing should considered important by it's ability. Humans have the most ability in terms of practically everything and should hence be held above everything else, hence athropocentrism. It is illogical to throw away the most important asset of any system and humans are logically superior to other things. So we must preserve nature's most important asset (us) as it is the only logical thing to do. Because of this I offer the value of PRESERVATION. To meet the value I offer the criterion of PROGRESS. The only way to succesfully preserve natures most important asset it is imperative that we progress through success in things such as technology and social ability so as to be able to eliminate the waste of the lesser important systems. This view helps humans and nature whereas biocentrism can only help nature. SUBPOINT A HUMANS ARE NATURES MOST IMPORTANT ASSET --- LOGICALLY An asset is something that supercedes other things in terms of potential success or preexisting success. Humans are so far the only the only living thing able to reason and use logical thinking skills. All other living things act on instinct or don't actually have a mind at all. Humans have made the most social progress than any other animal, we are more technologically adnvanced than any other animal. But the sheer fact that we have the ability to reason sets us apart from any other thing on the planet and makes us inherently better. So humans are natures most important asset. B ACCORDING TO RELIGION MAN IS SUPERIOR---- THEISTIC According to the majority of religous beliefs, man has dominion over the animals put on the Earth with him. Because the existence of God defines the Earth we live on now it makes humans superior and hence anthropocentrism superior. To say biocentrism is better would be to defy God himself as we are in his image. C PROGRESS IS NESCESARY TO PRESERVE HUMAN LIFE If humans do not progress through life and evolution than humans begin to lose there value and ability to survive. When superiority is lost in us humans that means nature loses its most important asset. A system cannot work without its key unit and hence progress is nescesary for the survival of all of nature. In summary, it is nescesary to mention that the opponent presents his case with advantages and disadvatages to humans, an athropocentric view. So the mindset of the Neg is already favoring me. Also through all of the efforts of the Neg all that could be accomplish is either chaos or the loss of value in all living things. Also it is quite likely the human race would not survive throught out the biocentric view. Through my athro. view it takes into account the AMOUNT of worth everything has. So it does allow all things to have worth, just not all equally so. The anthro. view preserves natures unimportant features and the important and also the human race. It also creates a more benefical system altogether. Because anthropocentrism is inherent in life and because the success and progress of the most valuable things in nature are dependent upon it I ask for the Aff vote. Thanks.