Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

Ok I'm basically going to start at the top of the "flow" and cross apply the drops etc.. Notice no clear attack was ever made on the Aff's V/C except he questions how I achieve Philosophical Justice by "giving humans more value than all other organisms," 1- I never claimed that humans should be valued above anything for that matter go back and read my definition on Anthro it says such. I simply state it as "enhancing and fostering humanity before the welfare of other beings" nowhere is there any claim made towards valuing humans above anything don't let him try to back track in the last speech his had his chance. 2- I tell you Philosophical Justice is giving each their due, therefore since humans status is merited we give them what they're due therefore achieving my value. He never attacks the link between the V/C here so it still stands in the round you can vote first off this. Next most off his case is just claims, starting in his obsv where he says "all creatures can survive and have a chance at fulfilling their best interest." First, this is empirically false since animals have extinct due to other animals either out-powering them or being smarter. So animals existence or extinction in general is completely non-unique. Next going to his framework, he tells you that even though things serve different purposes and they have differing values we should still value them equally. This makes no sense, since in nature there are food chains. How are things equal if nature sets up a hierarchy? Second, I'd say trying to force humans to value a plankton equal to that of their new born is going to cause public backlash. Third I'd say he never tells you how to intrinsically value things, he just says view things equal...ok? What actions does that entail? What does that achieve? Why do we absolutely have to value things equally? What happens if we don't? Who assigns this value? He never gives you any stipulations which is why in my first contention I tell you it's a bad policy due to that it's so vague. Just because you see things like a puzzle doesn't make the world a better place. Going to the first response against my contention 1."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" First, I never said Bio isn't good because we can't abuse animals. I said since we live in an Anthro world and we don't allow animals to be abused, then saying that we don't intrinsically value things is bankrupt because the laws are empirical proof as such since we don't allow the mistreatment in developed countries. His response was irrelevant and completely mishandles the first point of the contention so don't let it hold any weight. Now the second response, he says he provides you a weighing mechanism...where? Read the NC again and don't let him try to post a new argument in the last speech because he had his chance and he missed the argument completely. He says he tells you what HE values in every organism, which is the purpose they serve in the biotic community, that's fine but that's not a weighing mechanism, and again he never tells you why we should view things equally cross apply the third response to his framework here, and don't let him try to come back and say nothing but humans are valued in Anthro. I addressed this at the top of the rebuttal. Lastly the third response, he says he never holds such view, however he excepts all my definitions which tells you that Bio is "viewing all things as having intrinsic value," so his attempt to opt out of this with the abuse claim is irrelevant. It's not a fallacy or a straw-man, it applies because he accepted the definition. He mishandles this argument as well it still applies, so again you're turning offensive weight he's gaining off this "intrinsic value" claim. Going to my contention 2- "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." This is again a large claim which has absolutely NO warrant. He says we use our critical thinking to cooperate, ok how're we not in the anthro that I claim in the AC? He never tells you why so the first part of the response you can throw out. Scratch that, he never tells you how exactly we are to take actions to "cooperate" with nature in the first place whether in Bio or Anthro. I'd argue that it's literally impossible to take actions that coincide with nature because we do not know nature's intentions. Second I'd say humans have stopped the progress of evolution so in our nature we don't "cooperate" with nature. Second he says because I agree that things have different roles that I agree they should be valued equally....? This isn't even a real argument, but I'll still refute. If things are different they're not equal. Cross Apply the 1 and 2 at the top of the rebuttal and the 1 and 2 responses to his framework. You can also use the Aff's C to show this is a ridiculous claim since it goes dropped in the round as I stated earlier, and you can still vote Aff because the V/C stands. Ok his last response is again very random and not applied to anything claimed in the AC, I said by giving humans what they're due through Meritocracy achieves Justice which is defined as giving each their due. I never said our "inherent worth is better," and I don't have to as the Aff. Again he accepted all the definitions so any new ones he's trying to apply to my case are completely irrelevant. Lastly his V/C never gives any link to what actions or impacts that are going to result from doing such so at that point it's a terrible policy because we don't know what will happen as a result of acting in such a way. All our babies could die or something ridiculous, we could spawn the next Hitler, I don't know. Since he never weighs his own V/C you look to the Aff's V/C which is heavily weighed, since you're achieving Justice. So you're voting Aff for the following reasons: My V/C still stands as it was never directly refuted, comparable to the Neg's V/C which I already told you is bad to subscribe to since he never tells you the impacts of why we should value HIS or what happens when we don't. That's also true of my argument which went mishandled against Bio when I tell you it's too vague in and of itself. Third, He never says why we shouldn't give humans what they're due so you're still looking to the Aff's V/C because I'm achieving Justice and he never tells you why I'm not. Fourth, He never gives you a direct link as to how we value things equally, who assigns this value, how we're to assign equal value to a natural hierarchy, and etc that I already cross applied from earlier. Fifth, he never refutes that humans have different merits than that of other animals in fact he agrees with that point, so then you still achieve Justice through giving humans what they're due as opposed to forcing them to find some mystical way that he never prescribes as to how we're equally value things. Lastly again his entire case is full of strictly claims with no actual warrants or impacts, so you can vote Aff because you actually know what's going to happen as a result of taking said actions.