The Instigator
Cobo
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Cobo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,872 times Debate No: 16078
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

Cobo

Pro

Greetings, Today's Topic is Anthropocentrism versus biocentrism
I will take the side of anthropocentrism and my opponent biocentrism.
This round is for Acceptance and definitions only.

But Before My Opponent Accepts I have one rule

1.No Videos are Allowed to be used within this debate

Now unlike most debate's on here this debate will focus one which is better.
Basically Today We have a Comparative Resolution.
So unlike Most rounds where the Pro has to prove something and the con has to disprove it, We will be arguing over to separate theories an which one is the best.

Here are my definitions

Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings.

Biocentrism:an ethical point of view which extends inherent value to non-human species, ecosystems, and processes in nature - regardless of their sentience

I await the Con
headphonegut

Con

thank you.

I accept your definition of anthropocentrism however since I'm for biocentrism I will define it.

Definitions
Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things.

sorry for posting so late.
Debate Round No. 1
Cobo

Pro

Humans cannot help but be anthropocentric, just as spiders cannot help being arachnid-centric, or cats being feline-centric, therefore it should be valued above biocentrism"- Steve Woods

Because I Agree with this statement I affirm this Comparative resolution "Anthropocentrism Versus Biocentrism"

[Definition]
My Opponent has accepted the definition for Anthropocentrism and has Posted his own definition of biocentrism.
So the definitions for this Round will be

Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings.

Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things.

Now to Today's Debate.

[Intro]
Survival or the Fittest. It's a popular theory in Nature.
What it Basically means is that the best developed organism will Survive in the World.
This Theory is My Main Supporting Factor in Today's Debate.
Now Survival of the fittest should be applied to all species, If a species cannot survive then it is doomed.
Most Species have Special Adaptations that allow them to Survive.
A cheetah has speed.
A Chameleon has a changing color ability.
A Octopus has ink.
So what does Mankind have?
We have Superior Intelligence, which is based in our Anthropocentrism.
Biocentrism Will Take away from this an seeks to put humans on a equal level with all organisms.
We Cannot Possibly allow that to happen.

Now looking through the Biocentrism side in today's debate you will presumably see a side that will bring up countless sob stories about how humanity is destroying the world.
But, Judges I will how every human being is anthropocentric in thinking and that biocentrism takes away Mankind's Superior Intelligence and Robs Humanity of Life.

Ct.1-Anthropocentrism is Just Mankind's Way to Survive in the World

Politics by Aristotle
"We must believe, first that plants exist for the sake of animals, second that all other animals exist for the sake of man, tame animals for the use he can make of them as well as for the food they provide; and as for wild animals, most though not all of these can be used for food or are useful in other ways; clothing and instruments can be made out of them. If then we are right in believing that nature makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man."
what Aristotle is saying is "Everything exists for man to use

To Sum this up, Humans should be at the Center of the Universe because all things exist to be used by us.
We are at the top of the Food Chain, And this is our "Niche" or Humanity's' special place in the environment.
Our Needs Cannot be considered at the same level of animals because we consume them not the other way around.
The Food Chain has Humans on the top.
Because Who else is going to be on the top? Chicken's, Cows, Bears?
We have to eat these lower animals to survive, not the other way around.
We use these other animals for cultural lifestyles like farming, not the other way around
And that makes every human being anthropocentric. Including My Opponent.
Unless you do not eat. Anything.

Ct.2-Anthropocentrism Will Protect the Environment

"If you won't do if for the animal then do it for yourself"-Unknown

This argument maintains that Human Using Anthropocentrism Can protect the environment.
Humans understand the link between the environment and human life, Anthropocentrism already functions to protect the environment. As Humans we understand that if we pollute the air too much then It will end our species.

"In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants have fallen substantially since 1990, resulting in improved air quality over the region."-European Environment Agency
Source-http://www.eea.europa.eu...

This Source(An Environment Agency by the Way) Shows that humankind is aware of their effects on the ecosystem.
Man wants to stick around for Awhile and Anthropocentrism will let that happen.
This show Again that Most humans are anthropocentric in thinking.

Ct.3. Biocentrism Effectively Cripples humankind's progress

This Argument stems off my Opponent's definition of Biocentrism.

Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things.

This Biocentrism concept is Flawed for 2 Main Reasons

Subpoint A-Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive
So here is Are some "Metaphorically Speaking" Examples

What happens if A bacteria needs to survive but it also causing major damage to my health?
Do I Not Take Medicine
You See The Bacteria Want and Needs to Survive but a human Does too

What happens if I just let a poisonous snake bit me?
Do I Not let myself the Kill the snake?
The Snake Wants and Needs to Survive but a human does too?

Philosopher Paul Taylor says "To accept the biocentrism outlook and the world view in its terms is to commit oneself to the principle of species-impartiality. No bias in favor of some over others is acceptable. The impartiality applies to the human species just as it does to nonhuman species."

With this Species Impartiality Humans Cannot Favor themselves above any animal and the food chain must be neutral. We are just another Species. Nothing Special about any Form of Human Life.

Subpoint 2.Using biocentrism takes away the Significance of humanity Intelligence

Biocentrism gives no special value to any living thing, including humans.
The beauty of the human race (our achievements, compassion, inventiveness in science and the arts, etc.) is taken away and we(humanity) are another basic species that should not be able to get ahead.

This takes away from the fact that we are the ones with intelligent life and the fact that we are to ones Caring for some animals and trying to help them not go extinct.
We are the one's discussing this theory not animals.
Animals only basic intelligence is to Survive (Which is also implanted within Humanity and goes back to my intro).

Would a Cow would've have know it could produce milk?
Would a Sheep known how that it fur can produce clothes?

"Say what you want but you cannot howl for the wolf"-Unknown

[Conclusion]
I have ultimately proved how humankind cannot possible survive without Anthropocentrism
Judges I urge a pro vote in today debate.

I Now open the floor to the con an await his Case.
headphonegut

Con

headphonegut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cobo

Pro

I would again like to thank my opponent for today's debate.

[Definitions and Resolution Clarification]

The Definitions for today currently are

Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings.

Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things.

I did not receive the chance to explain in my Second speech, but today we are dealing with a comparative Resolution.
That Means we are here to compare Which of these theories is better.
In Doing this you must do two things.
1.Provide Arguments or Basis for your Side-In order to have reasons why your side is better
2.Follow the definition you have used to describe your side-so you and your opponent can argue on the same topic

You will see the relevance in me explaining this later on in the round.

[Arguments]
First I will Address the Attacks made on my arguments.
I will be quoting only some parts. I ask the judges not to take away points from me for what my opponent said.
I will address many of his arguments no matter how long or short.

Ct.1-Anthropocentrism is Just Mankind's Way to Survive in the World

"So they're not special adaptations they're just adaptations that have happened over time in order for them to survive."

The Major Attack Against this Contention is that Survival of the fittest happened over time and that most adaptations aren't special, these adaptations just happened so a species can survive.

Well, So what is not special about Surviving.
If you ask me then I would call anything special if it allowed me to survive.
My opponent assume that this Argument is about evolution theories, it is not.
It is about how humanity values itself above common plants or animal

I Fail to see how this Argument relates to this Contention
It does not attack the contention itself, it only explain that survival of the Fittest happens over time.
And that Adaptations are not special.

Ct.2-Anthropocentrism Will Protect the Environment

"low pollution in one country doesn't mean there is low pollution in others and it does not eliminate the problem of pollution."

That Was the only argument against this Contention
Now first Looking at the source of http://www.eea.europa.eu...
This Agency Is Addressing all of Europe(A Usually heavy pollution area) and showing that the pollution is lessening.

Second, We Are being anthropocentric in looking for a way to solve pollution.
Why, you might ask?
Because Humanity wants to stick around longer.
It is only Recently that we have begun to search for ways, but we are thinking of ourselves in the long-run making us anthropocentric.

Now This is uniquely special to my case because my opponents side cannot protect the environment using the definition of Biocentrism.

Ct.3. Biocentrism Effectively Cripples humankind's progress
Now Let me explain this Contention a bit more, this definition was based off of my opponents definitions of Biocentrism which is

Biocentrism: The view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things

The Key phrase in this definition is "needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things"
This is mainly what my Subpoints were about.
If my Opponent does not understand he must look at his own definition first.

Subpoint A-Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive
My Opponent did not understand this point clearly.
This point states that Mankind's Needs(Eat, Shelter, Sleep) cannot be met with biocentrism and this ultimately Destroys mankind.

My Opponent attack this with an argument about Moral Agents and Patents
Now all moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our duties to humans.
Meaning the way we act toward anything in nature is devired from our anthropocentrism
And I also fail to see how Biocentrism grants these morals.

Subpoint B-Using biocentrism takes away the Significance of humanity Intelligence

My Opponent attacks this contention stating

"If your argument is based on humans being great because of intelligence then it fails. There are some animals that are smarter than humans like a parrot or dolphin until the human grows to a certain age."

Now First, in this debate Anytime I am saying humans then I mean as a race.
And Secondly Its not about how smart some humans are at a point, this contention address the discoveries that Humanity has found.
This point is not about Who should be saved or not.
This Point is about how humanity has accomplished many feats and biocentrism takes away these feats.

[Opponent Case]
My Opponent did not actually state a case. He just attacked my points with weak arguments that were usually one sentence long.

So the only thing I can attack is the Biocentrism outlook based upon his definition.
Which is basically the definition he must abide by the rest of the round.

So what does his view of biocentrism state?

What is Does say
Human Needs cannot be valued above any other living things
Humanity Needs are reduced if considered important than any other living things(Plants, Animal, Bacteria)

What is Doesn't say
Biocentrism will grant Humanity a way to Survive
Biocentrism will protect the environment
Biocentrism Grants Moral Status
Biocentrism will allow all Species(Not Including humanity) to survive

My Opponent seems to think that he has a different definition of Biocentrism when he actually doesn't

[Conclusion]
Today, You, the judges have seen a weak attempt at supporting one theory and a attempt at attacking another theory.
My Opponent today has not offered any case and in his attacks he tries to carry attacks with a different definition it seems.
But, as you can see all his definition does is bash humanities' way of living.
As I stated in the Second Speech the Opponent is trying to state sob stories about how humanity using anthropocentrism doesn't care for animals, and doesn't extend moral worth.
But does biocentrism?
I think Not. So here are some early voters in today's debate.

1.Forfeit-My Opponent has agree to let me use this as a voter
2.No Case-My Opponent has no Arguments that Support Biocentrism
3.Hardly Any Strong Attacks-My Opponent Attacks are usually one Sentence long (Please Look at contention Two)

So today I urge a Pro Vote.
I Now Await my Opponent
headphonegut

Con

Thank you C1 - My opponent misunderstand the theory it is not meant to say the best developed organism will survive in the world. I t is actually not simple at all it is very complicated.

First of all the theory is placed in his book On The Origin Of the species by means of natural selection. Species (populations of interbreeding organisms) change over time and space. Representatives of species living today differ from those that lived in the recent past, and populations in different geographic regions today differ slightly in form or behavior. These differences extend into the fossil record, which provides ample support for this claim.All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor. For example, humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about eight million years ago, with whales about 60 million years ago, and with kangaroos over 100 million years ago. Shared ancestry explains the similarities of organisms that are classified together: their similarities reflect the inheritance of traits from a common ancestor.Evolutionary change is gradual and slow in Darwin's view. This claim was supported by the long episodes of gradual change in organisms in the fossil record and the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species in Darwin's time. Since then, biologists and paleontologists have documented a broad spectrum of slow to rapid rates of evolutionary change within lineages.

So they're not special adaptations they're just adaptations that have happened over time in order for them to survive. And our superior intelligence is not based on an ideology.

And to say that humans are protecting the environment is false just because their is low pollution in one country doesn't mean their is low pollution in others and it does not eliminate the problem of pollution.

A bacteria does not know what it wants since it doesn't have a mind to think. bacteria isn't going to know that's dying. And snakes only attack if threatened and what would a human be doing with a snake anyway? If an animal is sentient or has the capacity to feel pain that animal has an interest in not feeling pain.Compare a pen and a gerbil. There is nothing I can do to the pen that matters to it. It can't feel pain. It can't be deprived of liberty. But a gerbil can feel pain, and pain is bad, so what I do to the gerbil matters to it. Since the gerbil has interests (specifically, an interest in not suffering), it has moral status. This is not to say that the gerbil has the same interests as a human. I have an interest in participating in the student council. The gerbil does not, since it cannot. Also, I'm a moral agent. The gerbil is a moral patient. It can be acted on, morally, but cannot act, morally. I am responsible for my conduct in a way that a mouse is not. Strictly speaking, I am both a moral agent and a moral patient. The gerbil is only a moral patient.

Furthermore My opponents argument stems off an idea that humans are on some special pedestal and biocentrism is trying to take humans off of it. No things or beings are on this earth exist to serve or be used for others. We simply do not know why we are here nor why anything else is here. We have the food pyramid which shows what animals ( including humans) eat. Competition is inevitable because sentient animals have a desire to survive.

Conflicts between organisms are inevitable. "Not only must humans make use of the natural environment and thereby compete with animals and plants that might also need that environment as their habitat and food source, but humans must also directly consume some non-humans in order to survive". The person who adopts an attitude of respect will not automatically prefer the interests of humans to the interests of other organisms. He or she will strive to accommodate all interests. This will mean limiting human population, reducing consumption, and being wise in the use of technology.
Biocentrism sees humans as just another species, with no special claim on the earth's resources.It might be thought that this leaves us where we were, with humans doing as they please. It does not. Most people say that nonhuman animals and plants have no moral status, whereas humans do. If all organisms have moral status. This shifts the burden to those who would harm other organisms. What didn't need justification now needs justification. Most people are anthropocentrists. Biocentrism would require vast changes in our lives and in society. Compare the changes in thought, attitude, and behavior toward slaves before and after they were freed. Before they were freed, certain things could be done to them with impunity. After they were freed, these things could not be done. Becoming a member of the legal or moral community makes a great deal of difference to how one is (may be) treated.Furthermore what right do we have to claim what the cow produces? Even if the cow is not aware that it produces milk (which it does know, for how can it's calf survive) is it still not the cows milk?If your argument is based on humans being great because of intelligence then if fails. There are some animals that are smarter than humans like a parrot or dolphin until the human grows to a certain age. And what if you owned a dog and you had a retarded kid if the issue is intelligence the dog is smarter than the kid it has more interests than the kid the dog can feel and has more brain activity so shouldn't the dog be saved rather than the kid?

above is what I actually said.

r1 - My opponent didn't actually make an argument he put up a quote and said opinions about everything being made for us. However that is incorrect Humans don't have a special place in the environment plants do without plant we'd be nothing plants are the only species that can convert light to food, I am not saying that we shouldn't eat plants after all they don't have much of an interest I'm simply saying that we don't have a "special place" in the environment. My opponent makes a fallacy saying "our needs cannot be considered at the same level of animals because we consume them not the other way around." So if a lion eats us his needs are greater? I think those who don't eat, their needs are greater. (non-sequitur)

r2 - "this agency is addressing all of Europe." 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.

r3 - "Subpoint A Humankind Needs being on the same level as any organism diminishes our ability to survive
My Opponent did not understand this point clearly.
This point states that Mankind's Needs(Eat, Shelter, Sleep) cannot be met with biocentrism and this ultimately Destroys mankind."

Non-sequitur you do not show how biocentrism diminishes our ability to survive. and do not show how being biocentric leads to the destruction of human kind.

"All moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our duties to humans" If we're anthropocentric wouldn't that mean that we only care about each other and not others? And I wasn't implying that biocentrism grants morals because an ideology is just that an ideology however when practiced said ideology the practitioner will understand that he/she is a moral agent and a moral patient and that a gerbil cannot act morally, but he can.

sub B - Humanity as a collective has always hindered progress (Galileo), Einstein (published his paper 4 years before it was accepted), Faraday ( electromagnetism), and humanity never makes discoveries it's always individuals. Humanity has not accomplished many feats people as individuals have.
Debate Round No. 3
Cobo

Pro

I'd Like to Thank My Opponent for today's debate.
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
headphonegut

Con

R1 - Your arguments assumes that plants need humans to survive which is false.

Jonas Salk said: "If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." There's some truth to this of course I doubt the time frame given is correct though. Insects perform a vast number of important functions in our ecosystem.

They aerate the soil, pollinate blossoms, and control insect and plant pests; they also decompose dead materials, thereby reintroducing nutrients into the soil. Burrowing bugs such as ants and beetles dig tunnels that provide channels for water, benefiting plants. Bees play a major role in pollinating fruit trees and flower blossoms. Gardeners love the big-eyed bug and praying mantis because they control the size of certain insect populations, such as aphids and caterpillars, which feed on new plant growth. Finally, all insects fertilize the soil with the nutrients from their droppings. If all insects were gone then many plants would stop reproducing because of no pollination.

R2 - You don't actually prove that pollution has gone down with those links the first points out that while emissions have gone down it presents the problem of ozone. In fact "Europe�ƒ�'�†'�ƒ�€š�‚���ƒ�'�‚���ƒ�����€š���…���ƒ�€š�‚���ƒ�'�‚���ƒ�����€š���…���ƒ�€š�‚��s urban population still live in cities where certain EU air quality limits (set for the protection of human health) are exceeded. A number of countries are also likely to miss one or more legally binding 2010 emission ceilings of four important air pollutants. The need to reduce exposure to air pollution remains an important issue."

The second link points out a problem about asthma. The third link of my opponent is one of traveling I think and while Mexico is doing all it can to reduce pollution, pollution is still a major problem and has adverse affects on health of young people. Furthermore I find my opponents link questionable because those are things that Mexico is going to do and so hasn't done yet.
http://eponline.com...

The fourth link I don't believe I need to see it because of the plant spill going on right now and while clicking on the link their are more links....which is odd because there's nothing of substance. And the India article doesn't really have anything important.

R3 - If we are anhropocentric by definition a view of the world that says everything else was made to serve humans ergo If I am a human everything was made to serve me ergo although there are other humans those humans were put on earth to serve me ergo I don't view them as humans but as tools ergo we only care about each other and not others.

"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," You should have explained. If humans understand that they are moral agents that doesn't make them into an ideology

Sub B - Usually the pilot is responsible for an airplane, and responsibility =/= discovery

Biocentrism

I am simply saying that animals have an interest in not suffering I am not saying we shouldn't find cures for certain flesh eating bacteria because the bacteria doesn't have an interest I am not advocating to get rid of the food chain and not eat anything because have an interest as well with a more complex brain and more activity that means more interest however pain is universal every living being with interests can feel pain. Now we should still kill the cow because we still have to eat; however their comes a point when we're killing to many cows like when buffalo became sport and they went almost extinct. However now we are producing cows with the intent to kill them a lot like chickens we take a species of animals and breed them to simply end of killing them I think there is a problem we need to consider their interests as well that's all I'm arguing for.

Thank you for the debate

cordially, HPG
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nerdykiller 6 years ago
nerdykiller
orele aready counter....
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Someone counter if they want.
Posted by nerdykiller 6 years ago
nerdykiller
Phoenix_Reaper what kind of reason do you have for that vote?
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
"Japan air pollution has been dangerously high in the past but in recent years, Japan has become a world leader in pollution-control technologies."

Direct Quote from japan source.
And I lost all of the other sources but I will post three more later. on this week.
I think They all deal with russia. Even though Russia was include in the europe source.
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
ummmm your link simply states that japan has failed to reduce pollution.

any other links?
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Hey Man My bad about the Fourth Source.
Wrong place. Here is the right place if you want it.
http://www.thegoodairlady.com...
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
plz do
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Lol. Alot of sources.
If my opponent wants he can request for me to post more articles here.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Testing
Posted by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
whatever makes you feel better
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CoboheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was hard to follow due to the large amount of non-debate reference material included with minimal commentary. Cobo had a fairly weak and wandering argument but Con also did not effective handle the rebuttal. 1 pt to Pro for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
CoboheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb has been removed. Removing counter, will actually vote on monday.
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
CoboheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Do not recall voting this one.