Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

Hey what's up glad to debate with you, now let's get started. We are here to discuss the topic "anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism". My opponent has clearly defined the major terms in the round, so it is without further ado that I begin. the value which i will be presenting is Intrinsic Multism, which states that because everything has inherent value, every living organism should be equal. my criteria to support this belief is that of inherent value coined by Paul Taylor. this belief holds that every organism has its niche, or reason for being, even if different talents are sustained within different types of organisms. Now my audience, i must address to you, what is Biocentrism? Biocentrism states that all animals have inherent worth i.e. all living organisms are of equal value. As the con in the debate, I must prove why and how all organisms should be valued, proving therefore that Biocentrism is above anthropocentrism. This is my observation: This debate is not about animal life versus human life, as many of us would expect; the debate is about the values of the living organisms, and why they should be valued. Biocentrism provides a situation in which all creatures can survive and have a chance at fulfilling their best interest. According to Paul Taylor, he explains that inherent value is something every creature possesses. for example, a tree's inherent value may be to provide shelter, food, or other resources, for only a tree could have these qualities. A human being's inherent worth may be determined by his ability to think critically and rationally-- therefore may be able to help support the environment around it, such as planting trees that it has utilized. Yes, every creature does indeed have different purposes, and it is because of these values, whether big or small, that every creature should be considered valued equally. If we could picture the environment as a huge, three dimensional jigsaw puzzle, every creature would be a piece of this puzzle, fitting in and contributing its own part. "I would say empirically this is false as well since in many developed countries there are laws against the mistreatment of animals" Now, my opponent tries to make his first point on the round with the allegation that Biocentrism is flawed because we can't abuse animals in some countries, however, this is irrelevant. What does this have to do with the debate? Maybe my opponent tried to say that we can't be biocentric because we need to torture animals to survive as humans? While animals do need to kill each other to survive (emphasizing the fact that everything has its worth and works together like a puzzle), it is just in the law's best interest to not torture animals. Biocentrism never states that life has to be undermined, if that is what my opponent was trying to argue. "Since there is no weighing mechanism ever provided within Biocentrism you have no way to weigh it against any sort of ideologue since in never presents you with any impacts as to what happens if you don't intrinsically value everything" My opponent believes there is no way of weighing something's intrinsic value, but i have already set the standards of what I value in every organism, and why it should be valued, therefore, I HAVE provided a weighing mechanism. "Because they are saying humans don't intrinsically value things yet, they value Biocentrism, which states that all things must be viewed intrinsically, so either you drop their standard and I win, or they agree that humans do intrinsically value things other than humans" I never said such views in the first place, so this "flaw" drops. to me, it seems my opponent tries to put words in my mouth before i even said them. he has pulled a straw man fallacy, which seems very abusive. All I have stated in the round is that Biocentrism is the best standpoint because we are part of an ecosystem that we cooperate with. Whether the initial audience already values things intrinsically or not, is not for the debaters to judge. We are here to debate our standpoints and try to convince the audience. "Humans possess the ability of reason, conscience, virtue, compassion, survive better, and can stop detrimental behavior." As I stated before, humans do have this knowledge, this ability to think critically, and this is our inherent value. We have this unique ability, "Just as animals are unique and possess abilities that humans do not" like my opponent has stated. He agrees with the fact that every creature has its own niche, therefore, its own value. His last contention is merely random information about Human's ability to think, that proves furthermore that we should use our critical thinking abilities to cooperate with the puzzle of the environment. Every creature has its own inherent value in its own unique way, therefore should be valued equally. My opponent has agreed with these facts as I have quoted him, therefore proves that Biocentrism is above anthropocentrism. My opponent also argues his standpoint on Justice. How does justice give the human being more value than the rest of all the organisms? Maybe in government every man deserves what he is due, yet this does not prove how our inherent worth is better that that of the bio-community altogether. If my opponent is trying to argue that life is the ultimate justice, so be it. Biocentrism does not alter this view in any way. In fact, because we work together with animals, because we have this intrinsic multism, that this justice is amplified. Every plant and animal works together in this net of inherent worth. Do not let my opponent fool you, audience, by making it seem like life will cease to exist with biocentrism, when in fact, the complete opposite can be achieved.