Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

As a brief road map, I will be stating final rebuttals first and attacks second and going over the round, last. [My Case] Contention 1 First of all, lets take a look at Science. Humans do have a special relationship with plants in which we produce Carbon dioxide. "Breathing produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person". Plants need Carbon dioxide to survive, and produce oxygen "As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants, algae, and cyan bacteria absorb carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product. " Humans need oxygen to survive Simple Right? Niche Found. Argument debunked Source-. http://en.wikipedia.org... And, I'd Like to point out that this was all from the same page. As I stated in contention 2 throughout the round this is where we protect the environment and why we protect it. Because we think about ourselves. Contention 2 My Opponent states that " So that's why I said country you conveniently forgot about China,India,Japan,America,Mexico etc. Furthermore Low pollution doesn't mean no pollution. And who might we be? It's certainly not the human race. " So to counter this I will get articles online that state how these countries have been improving and protecting the environment. My Opponent asked for proof. Well Here it is. I would like to note that all of these articles have been within the past year. Europe-. http://www.eea.europa.eu... "In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants have fallen substantially since 1990, resulting in improved air quality over the region. " Source-European Environmental Agency North America-. http://www.epa.gov... "Levels of ozone, particles, and other contaminants in the outdoor air are decreasing in many places. EPA is also working to reduce pollution levels indoors, where many Americans spend 90% or more of their time. " Source-Environment Protection Agency Mexico-. http://www.mexicocityexperience.com... "Mexico City is improving air quality and public health in the city through programs that control atmospheric pollutants and reduce the emission of toxic pollutants. " Source-Mexican Experience Japan-. http://www.dailynewsupdate.org... # "In the past few years, Japan has increased its focus on developing and implementing pollution control technologies and innovations that are energy efficient. " Source-Daily News Update India-. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com... "give small loans especially to small industries to incentivise adoption of environment-friendly technologies. " Source-Times of India I Can post more articles in the comments section if my opponent wishes, but for the sake of the debate and final round purposes then I will not unless he requests. Contention 3 Sub A- I will break down this argument step-by-step. 1. This Argument is based upon my opponents version of Biocentrism His definition is Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. 2. Living things include plants, animals, bacteria etc. 3. Since our needs are less important than the plant, our needs are valued lower 4. Our Needs being lower, leads to less humans getting their needs (Shelter,Survival, Food,etc) and other organism having higher needs. I am Extremely Sorry that I did not explain this in detail and that my opponent could not comprehend this, in the round. I thought I explained clearly enough in the first speech. "If we're anthropocentric wouldn't that mean that we only care about each other and not others? " This honestly Confused me to the point of anger. I have no idea what my Opponent states with this one Sentence attack. And Humans are the only ones that can understand that they are moral agents. No other species can. Thus I would say this is anthropocentrism, and I would explain it but that brings in new arguments. Sub B- This Attack states that Humanity has always hindered its own progress and that discoveries are made by individual. Well I would like to counter with this. Is one individual responsible for the airplane? Is one individual responsible for the Rocket? Many discoveries have been made by mankind co-operating together [Opponent's Case] Well, What Can I say about my opponents case There isn't one. I've talked constantly this round about what does biocentrism achieve? What are the benefits? None, According to my opponent. I have attack my Opponent on his definition of biocentrism, since it only bashes humanity's needs and rights. But This Attack is shockily dropped. [Conclusion] Judges. First of all In My Opponents last speech He copy an pasted his case from the second round where he forfeited so it Could possibly make his side look better text wise. If you look at the comment you would notice that I allowed him to post his case in comments. Maybe He was trying to prove a point, but also notice that he didn't neccasarily put up strong attacks either. Most of his attacks were one sentence (look back into pro former speech). My Opponent has also forfeited his first speech, And He stated that I may use that as a voter if I wish. And I would like to Note My Opponent Has NO SOURCES. None for Definitions, no Quotes, nothing. The Con also has a non-existing case with no arguments. In Fact the closest argument I received from the Con is "Most people are anthropocentrists. Biocentrism would require vast changes in our lives and in society. " My Opponent could have noticed that I did not attack his arguments an call me out on them last Round but chose not to. So the voters for this round I would like to give are 1. No Case and did not state anything about me dropping points 2. Weak Argumentation-1 sentence attack/rebuttals 3. No Source 4. A Forfeit I would like to thank the Con for an outstanding debate an hope to debate him again. Thank you