RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

I'll begin by examining the differences in definition of "intrinsic value". My definition ("value that a thing has "in itself," or "for its own sake," or "as such," or "in its own right.") comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu...), while my opponent fails to properly define the phrase. The phrase itself has no denotation related to "earth's community of life" and the phrase can be used universally and is not simply limited to this debate. Because the definition of my opponent's value is incorrect, vague and limiting, we cannot look to it, and therefore he is left with no value. LD is a value debate and because my opponent has no value, you must vote affirmative. Moving on to the Negative's value criterion, when my opponent attempts to link the criterion and value together, he contradicts himself. He correctly states that "It doesn't make sense to say that non-sentient beings like plants and algae have 'interests'", which would strike down his own criterion. Moving onto his contentions. C1 - The example of treating races and genders equally is flawed. The debate deals with the human race and other species, anthropocentrism is not limited to any race or gender. Furthermore, humans of all races and genders are part of the same species, homo sapiens. The call for equality between humans is simply a call to see all members of the same species as same. Each member of each species must be treated equally, but each species should not be treated the same. Consider the species Shigella dysenteriae. This species causes dysentery. Now under my opponents case, this organism has an intrinsic worth and its interests should be considered equally with humans. That means, that in the millions of people that are infected with this disease should consider the interest of the bacterium just as much as their own. Under this (basically by negating) both the infected human nd the Shigella dysenteriae, would both die after some time. Therefore, biocentrism, reduces the number of lives (as I had mentioned during my Contention 2. C2 - Again, going back to my attack on his C1. Social classes were between humans. The break from them was simply treating all members of one species the same. Like I said earlier, each member of a species must be treated equally but each species cannot be treated equally (go back to my bacteria example). Now onto my case. Firstly, notice that my opponent does not attack my value or value criterion. I have successfully conveyed how my opponent's value and value criterion are flawed and therefore I win the value debate. Further, please keep in mind that LD is a value debate and therefore you must affirm. On to my Contention 1-A. My opponent asks why all moral duties toward the environment are derived from our duties to ourselves. I have clearly shown in my case that this is according to enlightened anthropocentrism (http://plato.stanford.edu...). Thus my opponent's attack on my C1-A falls, and my contention extends throughout the round. Contention 1-B. Human's do indeed have a vested interest in the protection of other species and the environment. Human's are heterotrophic and therefore must depend upon other organisms from survival. And this doesn't mean "killing millions of animals every year". I myself am a vegetarian and therefore am not causing the slaughter of any animals. While I understand that I am still ending the life of other organisms, I point once more to our heterotrophic situation. And if humans are stopped from consuming other organisms, every other species must also be stopped from consuming other organisms. That would lead to the end of heterotrophic life. His attack therefore falls. Extend this contention throughout the round. Contention 1-C. The part about other species thriving as well does not mean equal consideration of interests. It simply means that certain organisms must survive is humans wish to survive and some must not (going back to the bacteria example I provided). His attack falls, therefore this contention is extended. Contention 1-B. As I showed earlier, biocentrism would lead to the end of heterotrophic life forms. Anthropocentrism would defend not only human population but all other heterotrophic population. His attack therefore falls and my contention extends. Contention 2-My opponent states that my definition intrinsic value is incorrect. I have already explained why my definition is correct and in fact superior to my opponents and therefore his attack on this contention falls. My contention extends throughout the round. Furthermore, my opponent doesn't explain why my definition is wrong. He simply states it without providing any justification. This further proves that his attack is flawed. Just to summarize: I have successfully attacked my opponents value, value criterion and his contentions. Furthermore, I have defended my own value and value criterion and extended my contentions. Also, my opponent has dropped my value and value criterion and therefore I win the value debate. I therefore urge you to affirm.