Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

I will go over definitions, defend my case and attack my opponent's. Before I begin, I would like to clarify that I am a male, not a female, so that my opponent can stop using female pronouns to address me. On to definitions: Anthropocentrism - both of our definitions cannot come from the same source, else they would be the same. My opponent has caught himself in a blatant lie here. To clear up the issue, here is the direct link source for my definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com... . Furthermore, while that is what I said, that is also what the definition implies - "the most significant entity" - and it is also clarified in my observation. Biocentrism - Agreed My case: Observation: Definition Clash My opponent's argument here is flawed. Just because I used my observation to refute his arguments does not mean that he addressed it. He did drop it, he should just admit it and move on. As for the rest of his argument, it can very easily be thrown out. Because anthropocentrism and biocentrism are listed as antonyms, then that means that they must be opposites of each other. Therefore, I am completely justified in clarifying the definition of anthropocentrism, which can be gathered from the definition previously provided - that is, human superiority because of exclusive intrinsic value. Then my opponent says that he addressed my value and criterion through my contention subpoints, and that they "cannot stand without the points he offered and as long as I win the points I have won the value/criterion as well." This is not true. While the contentions are supposed to exemplify and uphold the value and criterion, that does not mean that the value and criterion cannot stand alone without them - not to say that they will, but they could. If he did mean to attack my value and criterion, he should have done so separately, with signposting. But he didn't, so he should, again, admit that he dropped them so that we can move on. Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself To begin, my opponent states that Inuit kill fish, polar bears, and seals. Yes, this is true, and I agreed with it. However, the point he missed is that while they do this, they do have reverence towards the animals, and believe that they are to be revered just as highly as humans themselves. Because of this, they are not anthropocentric, but biocentric. As I show throughout my case and throughout these rebuttals, biocentrism is superior to anthropocentrism. The reason that I looked at how anthropocentrism contradicts itself in this subpoint is to further reach that goal. My opponent shouldn't patronize me for looking both to anthropocentrism and how it is bad, and biocentrism and how it is good, in my case, because it's what I am supposed to do - otherwise, biocentrism could still be valued, but below anthropocentrism, and my opponent would win. Further, my card shows the danger to ALL humans, not just anthropocentrists, which is a danger. Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive While that is not the argument that my opponent originally made, at all - because that talked about how it is dangerous for all things to be valued equally - so he's basically dropping his original arguments and running new ones. While this is a rather expansive no-no in LD debate, I will attack this new argument anyway. First of all, this argument is false. Yes, humans are hurt by anthropocentrism, but through it, animals are also degraded, and humans use more than is necessary of their resources, which can lead to the overhunting and eventually extinction of species of plants, animals, and other life. Therefore, yes, anthropocentrism hurts all forms of life, and I am being biocentric. Next, we can look to my opponent's syllogism: "biocentrism hurts anthropocentrism. anthropocentrism hurts itself. So either way it shows man is apt to fail." First off, this is not at all true. Biocentrism does not hurt anthropocentrism, though it is superior to it. Where anthropocentrism hurts all living things, biocentrism seeks to preserve the circle of life, and the intrinsic value of all things. I will agree that we must have progress, but not to survive necessarily. Not in all instances. Further, my opponent does not show that anthropocentrism produces progress anywhere in this argument. Finally, my opponent is not correct in his end results. with anthropocentrism, we see death on both sides; with biocentrism, we see preservation, progress, and intrinsic value for all. Now, on to my opponent's case: Logical Superiority: My opponent says that I didn't explain how his superiority argument failed, when in fact I did. As I said before, the logic he claims to use, but really doesn't, does not support his argument, so it falls. Value: Preservation My opponent missed the point of the argument. He is being much too selective with his value of preservation, and therefore is only achieving a minute amount of preservation. While his value cannot be universally achieved on his side, it can be achieved on the negative. While nature preserved itself for the years before human life appeared, when humanity began its anthropocentric holy war, if you will, it was then unable to do so. Deforestation, smog, factories, development: these things made it impossible for other forms of life to preserve itself. Therefore, by taking the anthropocentric point of view, my opponent is only preserving humanity, while leaving all other living things to suffer. Criterion: Progress A) My opponent provides NO reasoning or evidence supporting his claim that progress can be measured. Since he did not, I can reason that it cannot be measured. His argument falls, as does his criterion. B) Cross-Apply all the information I have presented in this debate as to how anthropocentrism achieves no progress, like my card in my subpoint A. C) He has not proven, in any way, shape, or form, that he has directly clashed with my criterion, so no, my criterion stands. Ability Argument: While my opponent obstinately asserts that our ability is supreme to all others, he cannot and does not prove this to be true. The only two abilities my opponent gives us that make us "superior" are logic and reasoning. However, this is not proven anywhere in my opponent's case to be superior abilities. Therefore, we can conclude that they are not. Further, my opponent's "knife to a gun fight" argument does not hold up, because all things have certain abilities that might be considered "guns" in proper circumstances. Contention 1: Humans are Nature's Most Important Asset Logically My opponent claims to have presented evidence proving human superiority. However, all he has presented is logic and reason, which cannot be counted as evidence because even reason may sometimes be fallible, as my opponent's arguments show. Further, just because humans are well equipped to live in the world that WE have created, does that say that we are equipped to live in the world outside? Again, as I said before, we cannot grow fur, cannot breathe underwater, cannot carry water in humps to survive in the desert. We are not superior. We are just resourceful. Contention 2: According to Religion Man is Superior My opponent does not refute the claim that this superiority cannot be proven. After all, if we are looking to a supposed Biblical standpoint, most everything I as a Christian believe rests on faith, which is completely cognitive and cannot be proven. I do not refute the Bible when I say that all things have intrinsic value. I recite it. As I said before, the Biblical message is that of love, not exclusion, and anything or anyone that says different gives the Bible a bad name. Contention 3: Progress is Necessary to Preserve Human Life My evidence is my second subpoint. Again, cross-apply everything I have said thus far, as all things are valued, just in different capacities. His analogy is selfishly based and proves my point.