Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

First of all, look to definition clash. As my opponent provides none of his own, other than that of ought, we must look to the Pro definitions of this round. Refuting my opponent's definition of ought is simple; by whose moral code are we acting? Morality is subjective from person to person; no group has a moral obligation, because morality is, again, subjective. Disregard my opponent's definition, look to my own. Further, we can look to the Pro definition of anthropocentrism when refuting my opponent's case. Moving to the bottom first, just to show my opponent that I can address every single argument he makes, I will refute valuing human dignity by turning it against him. By negating anthropocentrism, he is negating the fact that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value. Therefore, I achieve this standard through my case, because I am advocating human significance, thereby ensuring human dignity. Against my opponent's diamond mine example, I would ask readers to disregard it. Let me make this perfectly clear: when humans are harmed, it cannot be anthropocentric. Therefore, diamond mining in Africa that abuses humans whatsoever is not anthropocentric. His burden is misplaced. I wonder if next he'll accuse the Pro side of advocating apartheid. I agree with his observation that Con does not have to advocate for biocentrism; however, his attempt at showing the flaws of anthropocentrism is unsuccessful, thereby leaving my opponent with no ground to stand on. My opponent's first contention - we must not value the superiority complex - is not accurately supported. Putting men over women is not the same as putting humanity over all other living things. It is not only an unfair assumption to posit women at the same level as animals, it's also completely chauvinist, and not anthropocentric. Humanity since the dawn of time, as I show in my case, has used the resources around it in order to survive, which is completely justified and anthropocentric. Continuing on, placing anthropocentrists on the same level as the Nazis is yet another unfair comparison, as is saying that humans using other creatures to survive is the same as the Chinese persecuting the Tibetan monks. I will be expounding more heavily on that second example. Tibetan monks act in the way that they do because they have the mental capacity to make that decision. Animals do not. Animals do what they've always done, and will fight to maintain their own survival. In this way, we are not violating a "moral" group of beings - since animals are incapable of moral decisions - and are instead simply using our natural advantage as a tool of survival. In my opponent's second contention - Nature can provide for those subjected to anthropocentric harms - we can stop right at "the caste system oppresses masses of people". How in the world is this anthropocentric? If humans are being harmed, then this is not anthropocentrism (look to my definition). I would agree that poverty is a bad thing, as is the caste system, so turn this argument on my opponent, because it does not uphold his argument. Moving on, his well-sourced example of how protecting the cow benefits India is truly anthropocentric. Basically, this entire argument that shows how not eating cattle helps humanity. .. ergo, it is anthropocentric. The way he finishes out his case once again leaves no doubt as to why you should vote Pro. He talks about how humans are oppressed by other humans, and how "superior" social classes are bad. I couldn't agree more; HOWEVER, this does not disprove anthropocentrism, but rather proves it all the more. We shouldn't degrade humans. Therefore, we should be anthropocentric. Moving to my case: Value: The Positional Good 1. My value is the only value in today's round. .. while my opponent displays clear, thought out contentions and observations, he lacks a value or a criterion. This really kills the round because it destroys clash, which is bad, if any of you LDers remember. 2. Desirability is determined by humanity. Our survival is the most important thing. According to the normative ethics principle, no value can be universally achieved, so while a small minority might want to wipe out the planet, almost all of humanity agrees that our survival should be the most important thing. .unless, of course, you're suicidal. Further, the source is not random. .. wherever you go, whatever site you look to, the definition remains the same. I got my own definition from the Wikipedia, though there is a similar definition from the American Heritage dictionary. Finally, I'm not saying that any one random person determines desirability. .. merely humanity as a whole. 3. His attack on my argument that humans have an obligation to defend their survival is silly. Just because the resolution does not explicitly state that there is a threat posed to humanity does not mean there isn't one. Without anthropocentism. .. no, opponent, we don't have to have bio for this to happen, though it does stand to reason through my case, just without anthropocentrism. .. humans are in danger. If we don't put ourselves first, who will? We have an obligation to protect our species, and since we are the only beings with the ability to reason, anthropocentrism wins out. Finally, I don't have to have a specific warrant. If we look to all things for merely their intrinsic value and not their extrinsic value, then we wouldn't be able to eat, or bathe, or build shelters, because we would be impeding on the intrinsic value of other living things. We have to put our own needs first. 4. Again, cross-apply the information I provided against the Con's points, as I have shown that placing humans doing what is in their own best interests right alongside Nazis is an unrealistic comparison, as we're not killing humans by being anthropocentric. 5. His sexism K isn't even topical. I am not advocating that we abuse and degrade women. Women and men can both think and reason, unlike the animals. Further, being a function of desirability is not means to an end, it means that importance is determined by desirability. Criterion: Ethical egoism 1. Anything that hurts humans is not anthropocentric. Period. 2. My opponent is acting like he's never seen the term moral agent before. It means humans are capable of personal moral decisions, or culturally ethical decisions. Animals aren't. Please don't misconstrue this term, it's an easy one. 3. Famine is not always manmade. If you look to the Dust Bowl of the Dirty Thirties was caused by drought and dust storms, NOT humans. That argument is fallacied. Source: Britannica Concise. My opponent agrees with my observation, so that's good. But he makes himself look even more foolish when he says he can think outside the box. His arguments make no sense and don't relate to anthropocentrism. Depends on what box, I guess. . C1: The article is online, just look up Jrank. My argument in the card stands, because my opponent simply proves it. We are using more resources than before, that's why we are using up all of our fossil fuels, which is not anthropocentric. We have to conserve if we want to survive. .. anthropocentrism wins out. And really, I'm a clown? Low blow, much? Also, the bio weaponry and atom bomb are examples of failures of humanity, because they are instances where anthro has not been exercised. C2: He should have left this alone, but instead he puts himself in an inescapable box. .. punny, no? The mere fact that we use other things as means to an end does not lead to the "harms" my opponent presents. By using these sources, we show our positionality, and anthropocentrism is proven true. So he agrees with anthropocentrism. C3: 1. Cross apply my arguments from C2. 2. I didn't drop the burden. Look to my last paragraph.