RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

Rebuttal My definition of intrinsic value is the same as yours "promoted as an end in itself " I guess you forgot to read that part. So the definition argument falls, I am debating as for biocentrism as you seem to have forgotten tying the definition to my case. making it fall further. How is my value "vague and limiting"? I seem to have even extended my value so it could be fair to both of us. Your whole intro is wrong and incoherent and he drops or concedes my argument of sub-point D. on attacks. "it doesn't make sense to say that non-sentient beings like plants and algae have 'interests' ""which would strike down his own criterion" I guess you again seem to have overlooked where I said "if and only if it has the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment" I find that it helps when you actually read what is being written or typed. C1 - "the example of treating races and genders equally is flawed. The debate deals with the human race and other species" (what I actually wrote)"historically popular reasons given for why women, and members of all races in general, should be treated equally while animals should not: 1. they all share at least one or more (putatively significant ) trait that animal do not " and then I attack this by saying " there is no trait by which every individual human is equal to every other ( e.g. intellectual ability, moral capacities, capacity to experience pleasure of pain, etc. etc.)." So again a failure to read or understand what is being typed leads to a faulty argument that has no basis for an actual argument. Further more his dysentery example again falls with "if and only if it has the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment." again failure to read what is being typed. C2- "now we live in a democracy, and the class system seems morally absurd. No person is more valuable than any other, no matter how rich or poor you are. So, since the idea only gets justification from the false view of classicism, but at the level of species, not wealth. The idea is just as morally repugnant as the classicist idea. We're not more valuable than other life forms just because we're born into the "prestigious" human race." ( the class system is basically People who occupy the same layer of the socioeconomic hierarchy are known as a social class (Basis, 1990:216). According to Henslin (2004:192), a social class is a large group of people who rank closely to one another in wealth, power, and prestige). again failure to simply understand ON TO HIS CASE C1 - 1.A his link isn't even about "enlightened anthropocentrism" this argument is a statement with no facts. B- heterotrophic - capable of utilizing only organic materials as a source of food. this is a valid argument but because my opponent misunderstands biocentrism is basically saying that human are just another species not better than any other. All species are connected or interconnected it is undeniable that every living creature eats in that respect they are equal (letting nature takes it's course). So a course of nature would be death by other animals but humans do not just kill they overkill they unnecessarily kill (hunting). So argument falls (nice try though). C2 - "when an organism is used as a means to further the ends of another organism" "Intrinsic value: value that a thing has "in itself," or "for its own sake," or "as such," or "in its own right." is this not contradiction which is incorrect or fallacious logic. so your whole C2 falls relying on the above statement and then contradicting it with your definition in that sense it is incorrect. Just to summarize:"I have successfully attacked my opponents value, value criterion and his contention. Furthermore, I have defended my own value and value criterion and extended my contention. Also, my opponent has dropped my vale and value criterion and therefore I win the value debate." I therefore urge you to vote negative. further attacks Your criterion is how your value is achieved or upheld and my opponent defends life, but doesn't say how utilitarianism(the theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number) is achieved by life ( a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate being) . My opponent has the burden of proof has not proved that anthropocentrism is above biocentrism in fact he has no case whatsoever because I have successfully made all of his arguments fall.