Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

Alright my 4 other cards won't fit, but oh well. I negate the Resolution resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism. Ought- moral duty or; moral obligation OBSV1: Negative doesn't have to advocate for Biocentrism The resolution places no burden on the Negative to provide an AFF framework for that of Biocentrism, be reminded that the Neg's job is to negate the resolution not be abusively forced to debate in a box of one Value, moving on to the framework. Simply put Anthropocentrism is bad policy, and is more detrimental than some are willing to recognize. For instance human domination does not only apply to nature, but also applies to other humans, that due to the superiority complex have continued throughout the years. Diamond mines for instance, not only lead to a destruction of nature, but the mass exploitation of African workers, who are brutally physically, sexually, and or psychologically abused. Humans must realize that Humility is essential to achieving and retaining any sort of Human Dignity (recognizing that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment) which when valued leads 1. to the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms- Nazeem MI Goolam and 2. doesn't allow for oppression and abuse to those who may have not achieved equality yet. I'll explain why not only the superiority complex has negative impacts, but why it's illogical, and how nature can even benefit those who are subjected to Anthropocentric harms. C1: We must not value the superiority complex. Sheila Collins (1974), for instance, argued that male-dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation, and ecological destruction. One cannot claim morality while advocating for the diverse forms of oppression that mutually reinforce each other. Karen J. Warren- discusses how value hierarchies resulted historically tracing back to the invasion of Indo-European societies by the nomadic tribes from Eurasia in 4500 B.C, Sheila Collins continues: The reality is that the oppression of women, minorities, and those on the low end of social and political hierarchies has now turned to the superiority complex which then dictates that those on the superior side (e.g., men, rational beings, humans) are morally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (e.g., women, beings lacking in rationality, nonhumans) as mere means. Once an individual views himself as superior the one he undermines becomes viewed as solely an animal, and allows any amount of exploitation under the sun. Nazi's felt that a superior and perfect race (Aryans) was to dominate and lead to global leadership. The view of the Nazi's then was that all other races were no greater than that of dogs or any animal, and were treated as such i.e. the Holocaust. Second, in Tibet Buddhist monks remain pacifists while China and others over the centuries have made efforts to dominate them. The Buddhist monks do nothing to adversely affect surrounding societies in fact that remain very secluded and value all life to the point that they tap the ground with sticks to make sure they don't step on any form of life, and because they hold such view they are persecuted and as a result set themselves on fire in protest, since they're pacifists and will not fight back. C2: Nature can provide for those subjected to Anthropocentric Harms For example in India the caste system oppresses masses of people and views them as inferior and they are subjected to such harms as poverty, which entails many other negative impacts on society and individuals. How the prohibition of cattle being used for food benefits India, Marvin Harris writes: oprotects the cow as a draught animal essential to agriculture and irreplaceable in India by the tractor oprevents the establishment of a beef industry, which would lower the per capita calories produced by an agriculture that all ready operates below subsistence level oit preserves the essential benefits that cow droppings provide to the poor: they serve as the only practical source of fertilizer, fuel, and flooring oit preferentially benefits the poor, as their cattle are subsidized in a variety of ways by the higher castes oit preserves the cattle that are well adapted to India's recurring droughts, their otherwise meager dairy output is vital during these periods of famine So even though humans are being oppressed by other humans, nature still provides means for them to live, whereas their "superior" social class could not value them less. Now to move to the AC.... Start at his Value, there's a few things wrong here 1st- this desirability is determined by who? apparently a random source, at that I say that's a terrible standard because he only tells you things are good if they're decided by some random person or society that a thing has desirability. Which sucks if you were anything, but a Nazi in Eastern Europe during World War 2 since all others were deemed "undesirable," and thus executed. 2nd- he says humans have an obligation to defend our survival, first off the resolution never poses any sort of threat to survival so that's irrelevant, second he's gonna try to say that people won't survive in bio, this is irrelevant as well since i never advocate for Bio, but i'd say even if you try to stick me to it that argument is false because he never gives you any warrant as to why intrinsically valuing things is going to lead to human extinction. 3rd- i'd say the biggest issue is him never telling you who assigns this "good" or desirability, if its humans I already told you why that's bad, because it leads to Nazism and the 4 examples i provided in the NC. 4th- I'd say this plays directly into the sexism K. He says things are used as a function to desirability, aka a means to an end, and once you view things solely as means it leads to the harms described in the NC. To his criterion I'd say it's in Humans best interest to trash Anthro because it leads to human exploitation, genocide, sexism, devaluing of humans and instead look towards valuing Human Dignity. 2- He assumes that humans are even moral agents in the first place which you can't accept in the round because he never provides any framework as to why just because i'm human i'm a moral agent. What if i'm a rapist or serial killer? 3rd- I'd say that famine is man made and no we haven't adapted because millions die not only in Africa but in developed countries as well from starvation. To his observ I'm giving plenty of clash that he can refute don't let him try to stick me to Bio just because i can think outside the box. His contention 1- I'd say first I couldn't find the article he sites which is fine, but I have trouble buying that humans are " increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources." If that's really the case why are we scrambling to get green energy bills because we've realized we'll deplete the world's fossil fuel resource within a hundred years? Doesn't sound too responsible as he claims, which is essential he says to reach any good. So at that point I'm outweighing empirically because we burn down the freakin Amazon Rainforest you clown. 2- humans ingenuity doesn't always lead to prosperity, i.e. Biological Weaponry and Atom Bomb, aren't good things doesn't reach any sort of claimed good c2- i don't advocate for Bio so most doesn't apply, but i'd say him telling you specifically you use things as means to an end links straight to the NC harms, so you apply them because he specifically prescribes to such a policy. c3- cross apply the response to his c2 2nd- he never even tells you why we have an obligation, just says we're at the top....ok since he drops the Aff's burden of proving there's a moral oblig to act, you can Negate on face. 3rd- all the harms i provide apply to the AC Last- He has to refute Valuing Human Dignity, when he drops this vote Ne