Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

"____rationalizing capabilities are any where similar is barbaric seeing as how animals don't have rationality.______" If anything the readers of this debate should be aware that I do and strongly intend to brake down this"anthropocentrism" idea and this claim here should say enough about the absurdity of the position if anything. Ok... now on to the fun part of the debate where we have toiled a little bit in the mud and have gotten to the core of the argument. I am going to set this out very simply, Hunter-gatherer societies share many traits with chimps and your telling me that they early humans are "barbaric"? Now we certainly have an argument over the barbaric nature of hunter-gatherers, but for me I would say that primitive life is more egalitarian, humane and simply more human then are barbaric civilization that enslaves us into a dehumanizing conflict of exploitation and suffering, but perhaps that argument should be left settled at a later time. Yet the point is that my opponent has not shown that chimpanzees are "irrational" and why should we try to impose these useless names which mean nothing. Chimpanzees like are early ancestors are well adapted to there environment, are social creatures that have less complex standards of morality, they have primitive tools that is adequate in relation to what they need in the environment. "Oh no", the Christians say, "the chimpanzees are irrational! Only man is rational for he is higher than the animals he hast created Civilization in god's image!" Blah Blah Blah ok enough with the rhetoric , look it doesn't matter that we have a civilization in which we domesticate ourselves, or that we are more intelligent in certain aspects. Sure apes can't communicate through speaking a language but that doesn't mean they don't have language! They communicate through various expressions, body signals, noises, emotions, touching, feeling, etc. Besides this is all beyond the point that even if we communicate in different ways that doesn't make us superior to the apes! What the hell is rationality supposed to be anyway? It is merely a subjective form of human bias to make are selves look so much greater than the earth, natural environment, and non-humans around us. Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational" 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)*** 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. "____On his 96% similar argument, what about the other four percent? His own source says "Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.____" 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. "__________Actually I say that NONHUMAN ANIMALS are purely driven by instinct. They want to survive and reproduce and find the most qualified mate. They live day to day unlike us. I concede that we have instinct and are driven by it. But the fact is we have Instinct AND rationality AND thought process AND extremely complex logical thinking AND everything else that goes along with running a functioning and superior race of human civilization. Free will exist everywhere but when I want to act on a completely ridiculous or even logical matter like murder or the like I have the ability to think about it at all angles. Whether it be the consequence of jail time or getting blood on my shirt. You and I have the ability to think it through. Also you can say probably with no warrant to the only way I will acknowledge the Christian fundamentalists argument is by saying that even if they do support anthropocentrism it does not make it wrong. Seeing as how they are also humans with rationality._________" AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!). {TRUE OR FAILS} Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do! 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). Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropcentrism 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). http://en.wikipedia.org... What this means for the round. 1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round. 2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should. 3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative. http://www.youtube.com...