There is no such thing as "inherent value"

BOP is on my opponent to prove that inherent value does not exist. So if I refute his arguments, you vote con. (as a sidenote, I verified the definitions to make sure he wasn't BSing this. Accept the definitions as legitimately sourced.) Without further adeiu, I'll jump right into this.To begin with, I'd like to point out that inherent value is a concept that extends far beyond the bounds of abortion debates. It's a concept that affects nearly every situation and issue known to man today. As such, to restrict argumentation to be based around what one would say in an abortion debate is absolutely ridiculous, as it's a massive ground skew against me. Also, as the resolution has nothing to do with abortion, there's no justifiable reason to restrict the scope of the debate to abortion arguments. This poses a few problems specific to the examples he uses to explain a few of his definitions, but I'll get to that in a second.I'll agree with his definition of inherent, but I disagree in which the way he is using it. Inherent value, in the way he is wanting to debate this, is a noun that talks about an aspect or characteristic of value that is always present in an object; it never changes, no matter what you do to it or what it does. Inherent value may have been placed in an object from it's very creation, or inherent value may have been placed in the object at a later time. But this inherent value cannot be taken away, as then it would not longer be inherent. For example, to use the gold example he brought up, an inherent value of gold is it's representation of wealth. This is an inherent value that was placed in it after it was created, as gold was just a metal before humans began to trade it and collect it in large quantities. This does a number of things to the debate:1) This frees us from the messy desirability debate, essentially making the rest of his case null and void. Because the BOP is on him, and a definition of inherent is insufficient to affirm, you can negate here.2) This invalidates the syllogism given below, as it relies on inherent value being two seperately defined words, instead of one concept with one definition. As his syllogism is his only real argument, you can negate here.But let's presume that his reasoning is valid, and that we end up considering 'inherent' and 'value' as two seperate words (even though I already disproved this). Let's go to the listed definitions for value. I disagree here that one is the only viable option, as four more accurately describes the concept of inherent value than one does, as well as removes the messy concept of desirability. You can prefer the fourth definition for this reason. All he says against this definition is that it doesn't really apply to abortion debates, but that's insanely abusive to limit me in scope to an abortion debate framing, as inherent value extends well beyond just abortion. As we're trying to determine if inherent value ITSELF, not inherent value in the case of abortion, exists, the restriction is unwarranted in the resolution, and his refutation falls. This change in definitions means that this also gets us away from the messy desirability debate, which invalidates his second premise in the syllogism. Thus, as his syllogism is the only argument he makes, and all I have to do to refute a syllogism is defeat one premise (thus de-railing the logical flow of the syllogism and invalidating the conclusion), you can negate here.But let's keep going down. Let's presume for a second that his definition of value holds, and that we need to consider desirability into this. Let's go down to his syllogism, specifically premise 1 to start with.The main problem with this premise is that it presumes that non-living things cannot experience desire, but that's false, as we can DESIRE non-living objects, thus placing inherent value into non-living objects. While the money in my wallet does not exist, I desire it in the sense that I want more of it. This places an inherent value of monetary value into ordinary paper, thus GIVING it inherent value, and proving it's existence. Another example would be the American flag. While it's just a tapestry of cloths and silks, Americans have placed desire in it as it represents those who defend our borders and the freendom that his country provides it's citizens. As we have placed these characteristics in the flag, the concepts it symbolizes are something that we desire, thus giving it inherent value. This refutes his first premise, thus refuting the entire syllogism.Also, just because something is typically associated with a certain thing, that doesn't mean it can ONLY be associated with that certain thing, but that's just me nit-picking. Now let's go to premise two, which says that value can only exist in living things. This is false, as we can place value into non-living objects. If this weren't true, then there would be no such thing as a monetary system, as all it is is placed value into bits of paper and metal. The fact that we have PLACED this inherent value into these objects, that AREN'T living, his second premise is refuted, thus making his entire syllogism refuted.Now to visit his final premise, which is his conclusion. As I've already invalidated the first two premises, this one is automatically false. But he makes an interesting (yet warrantless) claim that I feel needs to be addressed. He claims that the concept of inherent requires it to exist independently of whether or not it is noticed, which I agree with, as it wouldn't be inherent if it could suddenly not exist. But then he claims that this is something that only living things can do, which is incredibly false and entirely unwarranted (also looking past the fact that this claim follows from NO WHERE in his syllogism). Paper that we have deemed money does not notice the value we have placed in it, as it cannot notice (since it isn't alive). But because he can't notice, this does not change the value placed in it, as it is independent of whether or not it can notice. This means that even if he wins the first two premises, his conclusion is false in itself, thus de-railing the syllogism.As that's all of the arguments he made, I'll end here and turn the floor over to my opponent. So far, his case has proved nothing and has been refuted in it's entirety. I await my opponent's next argument.Now let's go to premise two