Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

I will defend defend my attacks and case. DEFINITIONS Anthropocentrism- My opponent states that my definition should be thrown out and that hers is better. But my definition too comes from Merium-Websters which states that it means human life should be valued above all other entities. The problem is that later she brings up that her definition means humans are the ONLY life valued. This is not what the dictionary says and should be thrown out. Biocentrism- I will agree that the opponents definition is the superior being that that all things in nature have inherent worth. DEFINITION CLASH The opponent states I dropped it but states that that is how she beat partially my biocentrism definition. If she just stated she used it to attempt to refute an attack than it was obvious clash and that I didn't drop it. I would also like to elaborate on the violation. The opponent states that to preserve clash we must go with the assumption that anthropocentrism means humans are the only valued life entity. But that is not the dictionary definition. We cannot allow for such a perversion of the definition merely so it will give the opponent more ground. This is neither fair nor LD rules. My definition is superior because it is the real one, with other assumed properties. OPPONENT VALUE CRITERION Opponent states that I didn't attack his/her value/criterion and that they will cross apply them to my case. When I attacked the opponents subpoints I was very obviously attacking the criterion and value themselves. His value/criterion cannot stand without the points he/she offered and as long as I win the points I have won the value/criterion as well. OPPONENTS CASE ATTACKS SUBPOINT 1 The fact that Inuit believe in certain magical things does not change the fact that they catch fish to eat, kill polar bears to make fur clothing, and kill seals for the fat they contain. All that my opponent has accomplished with their first card is showing that biocentrism is something to be valued. But in no way should it be valued over anthropocentrism. I stated that the card itself was anthropocentric and the opponent shot back that it was nescesary b/c they were talking about why it was bad. But I talked about why biocentrism was bad from and anthropocentic point of view and the opponent should be able to refute his side from that point of view. If the opponent is unable to think from the side he is on and must make arguments from the side he is going against, than it is obvious he should not win the round. They state that anthropocentrism is bad, but it is only bad towards anthropocentrists. If you look at it from a biocentric view than you see that it is not a bad thing. So it is not a real point for the Neg side. SUBPOINT 2 My opponent fails to understand the basis of my attack. The fact of the matter is that the opponent can only find harm to US through Anthropocentrism. It in no way harms the mass of other things in nature. The opponent is supposed to represent biocentrism and they fail to use that viewpoint in this argument. The second half of the argument is irrelevant as i now agree with Neg definition, but the fact that in ALL of the opponents case, they were unable to present information on how biocentrism is better than anthropocentrism. Look at it this way. Biocentrism hurts--- anthropocentrism. Anthropocenrism hurts ---- itself. So either way it shows man is apt to fail. Unless we have progress we are doomed to fail. So we MUST have this progress, as my case warrants, if we are to survive. So we can follow anthropocentrism and nature and humans live or we follow biocentrism and nature lives but humans die. Anthropocentrism is the obvious choice, and this is why my value and criterion are better and it shows why I beat the opponents case. DEFENDING CASE First off, my opponents states that my 'humans are logically superior' fail but does not explain how it fails. I explained why we are better and he the opponent didnt actually state why they werent. Opponent states that is is impossible for humans to preserve all things universally and that is not my intention. I represent anthropocentrism and b/c of this the only thing my value talks about is humans. It assumes that nature can preserve itself for the time being as it did the billions of years before humans were on this earth. My opponent attacked my criterion 3 ways so I will back refute it in three ways respectively. A) Opponent states that there is progress cannot be measured but provided no evidence or reasoning behind this whereas I do. B) same thing, opponent makes claim without logic or reasoning behind it whereas I do. C) Opponent says I dropped his but I have proven I directly clashed with his criterion so this argument does not hold water. Opponent states that all things have ability, just different kinds. Yes all things have ability but our ability is supreme. I have listed multiple abilities we possess making us superior. There is a saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Humans are the only ones who brougght their gun, and are obviously superior. The opponent once again states we are not superior, just different; and that i provided no evidence as to why we are better. But I have provided the religion evidence, the reasoning evidence, and the logic evidence. We are the most apt to survive in this world which can be shown by our superiority in science, technology, socioecological thinking, and almost ALL OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD. This cannot be stressed enough. If that's not enough it should become apparent when you see we rule the world that we are superior to all other beings. And because of this we should be valued more that any other thing. My opponent states that my claim can't be proven and then directly refers to the Bible. Some would say anything in this book is more proof than anything else in the world. God did not say we had dominion over everything on earth so that we would credit a mosquitio to having worth. Mosquitos have no inherent worth whatsoever and God did not intend for us to give them that courtesy. Once again the proof is in the Bible. To refute that proof is to refute the Bible. Finally, point 3. My opponent states that humans can't have permenant progress, which is his whole point to the attack. But he does not provide evidence, reasoning, or logic as to why this is so. He merely refers back to subpoint 2 in which there is no evidence either. Humans can continue to progress and will always progress, so long as we value ourselves for what we are. The whole basis of my case is that everything should be credited the value it deserves. Not everythig (ie mosquiotos) have value. One thing (humans) have more value than anything else. Ability to help the general populous controls this value. So humans should be valued the MOST, and above biocentrism. I would just like to refer back to my machine analogy. Lets say the machine im refering to is ironically a human. The arm of a human represents valuable things, lets say a cow. The appendics represent a mosquito and the heart represents a human. If humans think anthropocentrically then the loss of that mosquito (appendix) wont harm anyone but the mosquito itself. Losing the cow(arm) impairs the humans and many other things but does not destroy humans. The heart is the most important part. We have to most ability and should be presereved through progress and valued the most. This was an interesting round, I apologize for spelling/grammar mistake (B/c i am typing really fast) and i look forward to the Final Round. Thank you.