Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

I would like to begin my second speech by refuting my opponent's arguments against my own. He was mostly criticizing my speech, ignoring my points, and instead moved on to say " I won." I would like to point out that in his, what , 5000 characters or so, has only mentioned the dodos in his rebuttals. Is he completely ignoring that fact that us humans do horrible things to animals, and as an excuse simply say that we are the dominant species? Again, I would like to criticize him on his source. The dodo bird prospered in that island. I worded myself wrong, pardon me. What I meant to say was this: "Indeed, when Portuguese sailors landed on the island towards the end of the sixteenth century, they dubbed the happy bird as Dodo because of what they perceived as it's stupidity. It strolled fearlessly towards the sailors, completely unaware that their intentions may not be entirely honorable. And of course they weren't, they butchered a few for grub but luckily for the Dodo, it didn't taste too good and so you would have thought that the Dodo was safe. Unfortunately it wasn't, the arrival of humans on Mauritius meant the introduction of dogs, pigs, cats and rats; all of which the Dodo was completely unprepared for. The new arrivals had a field day with the defenseless Dodos while the humans chopped down the forests which were the natural habitat of the bird." -http://ezinearticles.com... I would like to stress another flaw of his, that is very vital in this debate. He is arguing against my arguments, which have evidence, with mere opinions with nothing to back it up. In fact, all he is doing is arguing against the content of my arguments, completely moving past the fact that I have many cases in which we, as humans, have mistreated the animals. OK, lets look at what he's saying, predominant amongst them the definition, "considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe." What I am simply stating is that with the excuse of "being the most significant entity," we harm animals, as once again I bring up the argument of the dodo bird. We wanted them to be crammed into our zoos, into our museums, not caring for a single instant for their well being. Then he goes into a completely religious source, with no evidence to back it whatsoever. I must say that this should be completely disregarded. But lets say that was true. Let's say that God placed humans as the stewards of the world. A leader should put his peoples' needs in front of his own. Are we doing that, as shown by the dodo bird? Are we doing that, by looking at dogs fighting each other? Are we doing that, poaching endangered animals for money? Are we doing that, by killing of an entire elephant population? He continues to point out that it is our duty to take care of the animals. I must attack this, because he is completely abandoning his point of view. It is our duty to take care of the animals. I must stress this. Are we taking care of the animals whatsoever? NO. As for his measly statement of evolution, he says we have a ability of complex reasoning- the understanding of good and evil. Okay, this is off too. We have very evident animal traits. What triggers our bodies to mistreat others sexually? What you are saying is that we know that this is "right," so we do it. We do have a higher train of thought than other animals, but this does not mean we should rule it. We may know what is good for ourselves, but that is not necessarily what is good for the animals of the world, as is shown by countless examples of animal cruelty. Then he argues against my second contention. Look at this video. IS THIS HOW A LEADER SHOULD ASK? SAY THIS IS NOT TRUE. SAY IT. http://www.youtube.com... This is a video that tells all we have done against the world and its creatures. Does the dog, with ribs protruding, have any sort of aura stating that it has any "intrinsic value" at all? Staring at beaten up cows, we laugh and clap! We might be the most important, but that doesn't mean that all other animals are completely useless! They have lives too! And what we are doing to them- and even laughing at- is way out of morality. He continues to say that humans have contributed to the world. What we think is contributed is cruelty. We invented the nuclear bomb. After we bombed Japan, we left it there, full of radioactivity. Oh, it may have killed a lot of people, but who else was affected? The animals! Who dies by the thousands because of water pollution? The animals! And who caused all this? Us. How are we contributing to the world? How can we right these unchangeable wrongs? How can we bring back the dodo bird? We can't. Righting our wrongs at this point is useless. It's like murdering your closest friend and then trying to make him alive again. Our world is in turmoil. And it is because of us. I would like to finish the rest of my speech refuting his points. He said I have not directly addressed his "positional good" value. However, have I not, indirectly? To say we are the most important species in the world is to say that we can do something more than what the other species do. But his argument for this is simply what other animals do, which has nothing to do with bio-centrism or anthropocentrism. He is saying that the world is ours to use merely to survive, such as eating. He continues to use the "survival" theme. Let me ask you this: does entertainment have anything to do with survival? Watch the video again. twice. Five-hundred times. Cock fighting, dog fighting, gladiator games- IS THIS SURVIVAL? THIS IS CRUELTY WITH AN EXCUSE! His defense for his first contention was again, flawed. His source came from a zoo manager herself, in which there would be no way for them to say anything bad about the zoos. I would like to counter his argument by bringing up the fact that zoos do little to conserve animals...but this is off the topic, and going into the topic "zoos do more harm than good." I would now ask my opponent to say that this statement is not true: It is better to be yourself, roaming free, than to be cramped in a 10 by 10 cell completely safe. To compound the affront, the remains of the last stuffed Dodo was destroyed in 1755 by the curator of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum, after being found in the sixteenth century. In one hundred years we found a species and destroyed it. Good leaders. OK, his second contention. First of all, I would like to point out that his arguments in that paragraph had nothing to do with "biocentrist thought," but continues on his first contention. We say we are the most important species in the world, but are we? We are the species that kill off other species, that ruins the environment, that pollutes Earth's beautiful terrain. I would say rather that we are a burden upon the world. And my argument about the poaching directly relates to the topic because, as you point out, we are the stewards of the world. And is poaching other animals for illegal money proper behavior for a leader? In his defense for his third contention, he refers back to his previous arguments, much of which were his own opinions. He states that "It is not showing humankind's intrinsic value, and is therefore not anthropocentric." In his definitions, anthropocentric had nothing to do with humankind's intrinsic value. He is very confusing with his definitions. Anthropocentrism was simply the belief that we were dominant. "Why care about the other animals?" is his message. To top it off, my opponents arguments were completely opinionated and does not have any examples to support. My points were not attacked directly, simply avoided, and my opponent proceeded to state that he won. He made a typo- please clear it up. "My opponent attacks all of my contentions with the same idea of 'let's save the animals!' though the idea in itself is anthropocentric more than it's anthropocentric." I