The Instigator
icey4321
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
FallofEmpire888
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above 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 6 votes the winner is...
icey4321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,399 times Debate No: 10993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (78)
Votes (6)

 

icey4321

Pro

I affirm the resolution. "Resolved: 1Anthropocentrism ought to be 2valued above 3Biocentrism." This means the resolution is asking us to evaluate these two competing ethical theories in the terms of 4morality; ……. Thus the only value for the round that can efficiently achieve the question of the resolution is Morality. To do so we must determine the content of morality and how we come to a right or wrong decision. The capacity to do this makes things worthy of moral consideration. Any moral theory can only attribute moral value to rational beings therefore my criterion to uphold morality is respecting rational creatures. I offer the following justifications for 5rationality.
J1. Simply stated Morality undoubtedly requires cognitive capabilities that allow reason thus rationale. To discern between right or wrong and determine a things morality we must consider details of the situation pit up for consideration. Thus reason/rationalization is imperative.
J2. When considering action we automatically think about the consequences of said actions. We consider what will happen and why we want to do this or why we already have done this. The ability to have a reason for action indicates we can be held accountable. Things like hurricanes can not be given a lawyer or put on trial or put in jail for its destruction of a population.
J3.When looking at morality itself we think about what means. The key word is that we have to think about it. Morality didn't appear out of ether. Morality requires a cognizant analysis therefore conceptualizing it requires rationality.
The burden of the affirmative is to prove that Humans are the only rational creatures thus the only things worthy of moral consideration.
C1. Humans are 6uniquely rational.
A.Non-Human Animals 7physiology doesn't allow rationality.
-
-No 8beliefs+no concept= No rationality
1(Stich 1978) 9." we cannot attribute propositional attitudes to animals in any metaphysically robust sense, given our inability to attribute content to an animal's purported belief"

On Stich's view, if attribution of belief to animals is understood purely instrumentally, then animals have beliefs. However, if attribution of beliefs to animals requires that we can accurately describe the content of those beliefs, then animals don't have beliefs

Given the second sense of having belief, Stich argues that because
2 (Stich 1978, 23)10, "nothing we could discover would enable us to attribute content to an animal's belief" we are unable to make de dicto attributions to other species, and we cannot make de re attributions because this would violate the truth-preserving role of attribution. Hence we can make no attribution, and if we can't say what an animal's belief is about, it makes no sense to say that an animal has a belief. The worry here is similar to the worry about anthropomorphism; when we use our language to ascribe content to other species, we may be attributing to them more than is appropriate. Stich is concerned that when we say "Fido believes there is a meaty bone buried in the backyard" we are attributing to Fido concepts he cannot possibility have, concepts like "backyard" which are only comprehensible if one has corresponding concepts such as "property line", "house", "fence", and so on. Stich's argument can be formulated as:
In order for something to have a belief, it must have a concept.
In order to have a concept, one must have particular kinds of knowledge, including knowledge of how the concept relates to other concepts.
Non-human animals don't have this knowledge.
Therefore, non-human animals don't have beliefs.

B.For non-human animals 10instinct precludes rationality.

12MIlikan1 It is true that nonhuman animals may learn or remember, may systematically store away, knowledge of the layout and of many significant features of the geography of the locales in which they live, knowledge of conditional probabilities among events significant for the animal, knowledge of hundreds of places in which they have cached
food, knowledge of the social hierarchy of the group in which they live, and so forth, and that all of these things may be learned prior to use of this information to govern rewarding behavior. But these kinds of knowledge seem all to have been determined in advance by the experience of the species as useful in guiding practical activities of
importance for survival. Moreover, this knowledge is typically called on only in contexts in which, according to the experience of the individual or the species, it has immediate uses of predetermined kinds. Meaning that all knowledge sought before some practical activity for animals is strictly a means of survival as opposed to a furtherance of the species itself.

13Millikan2 Motivation would always be directly grounded in perception, including perception of the animal's interior, of course, of its current needs as well as its current opportunities. Accordingly, Merlin Donald says of the behavior of apes: "complex as it is, [it] seems unreflective, concrete, and situation-bound. Even their uses of signing and their social behavior are immediate, short-term responses to the environment... ...Their lives are lived entirely in the present, as a series of concrete episodes..." (Donald 1991, p. 149) and "...the use of signing by apes is restricted to situations in which the eliciting stimulus, and the reward, are clearly specified and present, or at least very close to the ape at the time of signing" (p. 152). The pushmi-pullyu animal solves only problems posed by immediate perception. It does so by deciding from among possibilities currently presented in perception, or as known extensions from current perception, as in knowingly moving from a known place toward another place known to afford what the animal currently
needs. Thus the behavior of non-human animal is completely situation bound and not that of reason. Every goal is achieved through motivation provided by the current needs not of a rational decision or some other mental inclination.

Overall this means that Animal competencies are mainly adaptations restricted to a
single goal as opposed to Human competencies that are domain-general and serve
numerous goal. If instinct is what purely drives animals to be then rationality obviously doesn't exist for nonhuman animals. By attempting to value Biocentrism above Anthropocentrism the wheels of dehumanizing the human population begin to turn.
FallofEmpire888

Con

I am glad to join this debate as this is a new subject which I want to debate on.

C1. Humans are 6uniquely rational.
A.Non-Human Animals 7physiology doesn't allow rationality.

Well non human animals are obviously different to the degree they can rationalize but I would disagree that all animals cannot rationalize. Quite simply mammals because they share a closer evolutionary link and are biologically closer to us must have some ability to show morality. Mammals have to cooperate in groups form strategies for survival. This requires basic thought and concepts. It may be primitive (not as complex or diverse) but it has to work. A group of wolves have morality because they have to share food, not kill each other, show love and affection to young and other members of the group.
So it would be impossible for these groups to survive if they where to competitive amongst themselves and had not concepts of morality.

"____Accordingly, Merlin Donald says of the behavior of apes: "complex as it is, [it] seems unreflective, concrete, and situation-bound. Even their uses of signing and their social behavior are immediate, short-term responses to the environment... ...Their lives are lived entirely in the present, as a series of concrete episodes..." (Donald 1991, p. 149) and "...the use of signing by apes is restricted to situations in which the eliciting stimulus, and the reward, are clearly specified and present, or at least very close to the ape at the time of signing" (p. 152). The pushmi-pullyu animal solves only problems posed by immediate perception........
Thus the behavior of non-human animal is completely situation bound and not that of reason. Every goal is achieved through motivation provided by the current needs not of a rational decision or some other mental inclination.______"

Ok, well this is well cited but the idea that ape behavior is only conducive to present needs is nonsense. Apes have to build friendships and improve relations with other members of there family. Even cultural traits (culture= traits passed down from generation to generation) such as different ways of opening nuts such as using sticks and twigs to rocks and then simply hands. There is now way that apes could have these primitive cultures if as Merlin thinks is completely in the present. Besides apes are 96% biologically similar, they inhibit many traits of human hunter gatherer tribes.

"___If instinct is what purely drives animals to be then rationality obviously doesn't exist for nonhuman animals. By attempting to value Biocentrism above Anthropocentrism the wheels of dehumanizing the human population begin to turn."

Oh I am sure icey4321 that could possibly be the case! Now time for the refuting as I believe this is probably one of the most absurd claims from this anthropocentrist yet. You are correct when you say that instinct purely drives animals, because we are ANIMALS! If we weren't then why do we consume and reproduce and share many social and biological traits with mammals. Humans may have a more complex instinct but it is still instinct, as free will does not and has never existed. To have free will an organism would have to be completely isolated from all environmental, evolutionary and biological factors. What is so dehumanizing to accept that you are an animal what so wrong and immoral about that?
The only people who accept anthropocentrism probably are creationists christian fundamentalists who want to objectify there views of ignorance over the scientific method which is supported by evidence.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.livescience.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
icey4321

Pro

"_____Well non human animals are obviously different to the degree they can rationalize but I would disagree that all animals cannot rationalize. Quite simply mammals because they share a closer evolutionary link and are biologically closer to us must have some ability to show morality. Mammals have to cooperate in groups form strategies for survival. This requires basic thought and concepts. It may be primitive (not as complex or diverse) but it has to work. A group of wolves have morality because they have to share food, not kill each other, show love and affection to young and other members of the group.
So it would be impossible for these groups to survive if they where to competitive amongst themselves and had not concepts of morality.______"

Evolutionary closeness is rather inconclusive on the basis that the tiniest difference is enough to separate one from the other drastically. The slightest difference can account for drastic differences, in this case cognitive capabilities. Yes Animal and man share some of the most basic similarities especially in the physical sense where form fit function. But to say that our rationalizing capabilities are any where similar is barbaric seeing as how animals don't have rationality. Instead Instinct, which is not learned as according to my first source. If learning is not taking place, neither is a a thought process. Mammals need to roam in packs is as I said in my first Millikan card predetermined by the species. They were born into a pack and have instinctual inclinations to be surrounded by those like themselves. To say they have morality because of this is also an invalid conclusion of their ‘strategy'.

"________Ok, well this is well cited but the idea that ape behavior is only conducive to present needs is nonsense. Apes have to build friendships and improve relations with other members of there family. Even cultural traits (culture= traits passed down from generation to generation) such as different ways of opening nuts such as using sticks and twigs to rocks and then simply hands. There is now way that apes could have these primitive cultures if as Merlin thinks is completely in the present. Besides apes are 96% biologically similar, they inhibit many traits of human hunter gatherer tribes.______"

You can not say that Apes have culture because it would be attributing to them concepts they can not have without a solid language basis nor the complexity of a brain like our own. This ‘culture' my opponent claims they have is not culture at all but instinct once again (and you can reference my first source at the bottom of this page) that can also be passed along. Culture can not simply be the ability to get food in a way not normal to the being. It is actually these patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. On his 96% similar argument, what about the other four percent? His own source says "Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome." That is a vast difference and enough for rationality and cognitive capabilities to fall through the cracks. Despite this all, if we look at Animals in their entirety this one bit of grey area is irrevocably insignificant to concede that animals have rationale.

"______Oh I am sure icey4321 that could possibly be the case! Now time for the refuting as I believe this is probably one of the most absurd claims from this anthropocentrist yet. You are correct when you say that instinct purely drives animals, because we are ANIMALS! If we weren't then why do we consume and reproduce and share many social and biological traits with mammals. Humans may have a more complex instinct but it is still instinct, as free will does not and has never existed. To have free will an organism would have to be completely isolated from all environmental, evolutionary and biological factors. What is so dehumanizing to accept that you are an animal what so wrong and immoral about that?
The only people who accept anthropocentrism probably are creationists christian fundamentalists who want to objectify there views of ignorance over the scientific method which is supported by evidence._________"

Actually I say that NONHUMAN ANIMALS are purely driven by instinct. They want to survive and reproduce and find the most qualified mate. They live day to day unlike us. I concede that we have instinct and are driven by it. But the fact is we have Instinct AND rationality AND thought process AND extremely complex logical thinking AND everything else that goes along with running a functioning and superior race of human civilization. Free will exist everywhere but when I want to act on a completely ridiculous or even logical matter like murder or the like I have the ability to think about it at all angles. Whether it be the consequence of jail time or getting blood on my shirt. You and I have the ability to think it through. Also you can say probably with no warrant to the only way I will acknowledge the Christian fundamentalists argument is by saying that even if they do support anthropocentrism it does not make it wrong. Seeing as how they are also humans with rationality.

Moreover despite all the attacks on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold biocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is supreme.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

What this means for the round.
1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.
2. There is no way to choose Biocentrism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.
3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative.

So you can see that already you can vote AFF.
FallofEmpire888

Con

"____rationalizing capabilities are any where similar is barbaric seeing as how animals don't have rationality.______"

If anything the readers of this debate should be aware that I do and strongly intend to brake down this"anthropocentrism" idea and this claim here should say enough about the absurdity of the position if anything. Ok... now on to the fun part of the debate where we have toiled a little bit in the mud and have gotten to the core of the argument.

I am going to set this out very simply, Hunter-gatherer societies share many traits with chimps and your telling me that they early humans are "barbaric"? Now we certainly have an argument over the barbaric nature of hunter-gatherers, but for me I would say that primitive life is more egalitarian, humane and simply more human then are barbaric civilization that enslaves us into a dehumanizing conflict of exploitation and suffering, but perhaps that argument should be left settled at a later time.

Yet the point is that my opponent has not shown that chimpanzees are "irrational" and why should we try to impose these useless names which mean nothing. Chimpanzees like are early ancestors are well adapted to there environment, are social creatures that have less complex standards of morality, they have primitive tools that is adequate in relation to what they need in the environment. "Oh no", the Christians say, "the chimpanzees are irrational! Only man is rational for he is higher than the animals he hast created Civilization in god's image!" Blah Blah Blah ok enough with the rhetoric , look it doesn't matter that we have a civilization in which we domesticate ourselves, or that we are more intelligent in certain aspects. Sure apes can't communicate through speaking a language but that doesn't mean they don't have language! They communicate through various expressions, body signals, noises, emotions, touching, feeling, etc. Besides this is all beyond the point that even if we communicate in different ways that doesn't make us superior to the apes! What the hell is rationality supposed to be anyway? It is merely a subjective form of human bias to make are selves look so much greater than the earth, natural environment, and non-humans around us.

Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational"

Note to reader*** (Be aware children, in this debate I have made fake quotes to what I presume is what a normal "Anthropocentrist" would think about in certain scenarios.ha Ha HA)***

Next part to fully understand why apes have culture we must first understand what culture really IS. As I said before culture is nothing more than common social trait's small (such as style of eating food) to large (slavery, social structure). But apparently my opponent (lol I wonder why language makes it sound like I own you) has continued to disagree with the obvious to try to make culture sound better than it actually IS (and in most cases culture can be a negative). Just because what you define culture as doesn't fit the civilized standard is beside the POINT.

"____On his 96% similar argument, what about the other four percent? His own source says "Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.____"

Ok Icey4321 I am not arguing that chimpanzees are more intelligent, nor am I using that quote to mislead you or other people into thinking that there is hardly any difference. I am trying to argue morality and I believe that your bias is blocking you from accepting that chimpanzees have culture, even as primitive as may seem to the observer.

"__________Actually I say that NONHUMAN ANIMALS are purely driven by instinct. They want to survive and reproduce and find the most qualified mate. They live day to day unlike us. I concede that we have instinct and are driven by it. But the fact is we have Instinct AND rationality AND thought process AND extremely complex logical thinking AND everything else that goes along with running a functioning and superior race of human civilization. Free will exist everywhere but when I want to act on a completely ridiculous or even logical matter like murder or the like I have the ability to think about it at all angles. Whether it be the consequence of jail time or getting blood on my shirt. You and I have the ability to think it through. Also you can say probably with no warrant to the only way I will acknowledge the Christian fundamentalists argument is by saying that even if they do support anthropocentrism it does not make it wrong. Seeing as how they are also humans with rationality._________"

AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!).

{TRUE OR FAILS}

Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do!

Does just because humans have more complex ways (different) in getting food like hunting gathering digesting in a huge stomachs, fighting for food, sharing and distributing food which leads to social systems like hunter gathers, kindship relations, monarchs, fascists, etc. Then when we look at the worm all he has to do is put his mouth in the ground and decompose food. Now because the system in getting food for the human is more complex does this than make the human free of nature or what is called "free will", No it's just another process with the same undelying mechanisms Consumption and Reproduction is what it comes down TO (Not god not civilization, not even capitalism).

Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropcentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is SUPREME<3 ie, CIVILIZED RATIONAL(even though this view in most cases is irrational).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What this means for the round.
1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.
2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.
3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative.
Debate Round No. 2
icey4321

Pro

Language has nothing to do with rationality. As I have said time and time again Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth. My ability to think about what I did, why I did it, and how im going to fix gives me rationality. And rationality is the only way to determine rationality. Language doesn't give rationality and I never said it did so for the record this argument in no way attacks my position. Moreover language is a way that we all communicate and interact and survive. Im not saying that is anyless true for animals or Chimps or whatever. But it is NOT the way to determine rationality. Nor a way for my opponent to try and uphold Biocentrism.

_Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational"_

Not having morality doesn't make you wicked. Babies aren't seen as wicked though they have no morality yet. The key word is yet. They have the potential to be as well as all those other humans who may not have rationality for a pleura of reasons. So this argument is provocative word play that was drawn from an inaccurate conclusion of what I said—Once Again.

_Note to reader*** (Be aware children, in this debate I have made fake quotes to what I presume is what a normal "Anthropocentrist" would think about in certain scenarios.ha Ha HA)***___

This statement only is enough to vote affirmative. By my opponents own admission all of his scenarios and quotes and essentially evidence holds no water whatsoever.

_Next part to fully understand why apes have culture we must first understand what culture really IS. As I said before culture is nothing more than common social trait's small (such as style of eating food) to large (slavery, social structure). But apparently my opponent (lol I wonder why language makes it sound like I own you) has continued to disagree with the obvious to try to make culture sound better than it actually IS (and in most cases culture can be a negative). Just because what you define culture as doesn't fit the civilized standard is beside the POINT._

What's the relevance of this argument? It still doesn't refute how I firmly believe culture has no bearing on Morality. My only burden is to prove humans are uniquely rational therefore the only moral beings. Similarities could be down to the 99th percent and rationality would still be what evades our biological counterparts.

_Ok Icey4321 I am not arguing that chimpanzees are more intelligent, nor am I using that quote to mislead you or other people into thinking that there is hardly any difference. I am trying to argue morality and I believe that your bias is blocking you from accepting that chimpanzees have culture, even as primitive as may seem to the observer.

Well I strongly disagree with this. Though my opponent isn't arguing chimps and other animals are more intelligent he IS arguing that they have equal value by his egalitarian biocentric views. By saying that he is equating the life of a puppy dog with that of a child. And this is why that ethical system is flawed.

AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!)._

Why cant I? Maybe you cant wake up in the morning a discern out of all the reasons not to run outside naked. But me and a majority of the human population can. And if there is some type of illness that prevents you from looking at the pro's and con's all I can say is that I don't handle the little grey areas that are one in a million or not a majority.

_{TRUE OR FAILS}

Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do!_

They eat to survive just like I do BUT that is natural and one of those things that we have to do no matter what. The Worm couldn't decide not to eat. He doesn't even have a grasp on why he needs to.

_Does just because humans have more complex ways (different) in getting food like hunting gathering digesting in a huge stomachs, fighting for food, sharing and distributing food which leads to social systems like hunter gathers, kindship relations, monarchs, fascists, etc. Then when we look at the worm all he has to do is put his mouth in the ground and decompose food. Now because the system in getting food for the human is more complex does this than make the human free of nature or what is called "free will", No it's just another process with the same undelying mechanisms Consumption and Reproduction is what it comes down TO (Not god not civilization, not even capitalism)._

The complexity of a thing has noting to do with anything. Rationalizing actually isn't really complicated. It can happen in a split second without us realizing. There are though cognitive capabilities that our brains have that allow us to rationalize. Okay, A lion can run faster than me, it doesn't make him better. I am smarter and have more intellect than a doggy but that doesn't make me better. The only way to show my superiority to the animal and plant kind is by my moral status. The only way to determine my moral status is by my ability to discern the content of morality. If animals don't know what it is how can they have it? Its not like a stomach. The have stomachs and probably don't grasp the concept but they still have it. Morality is not like that. It is a concept that must have been thought up by HUMANS. Animals could probably careless.

_____Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is SUPREME<3 ie, CIVILIZED RATIONAL(even though this view in most cases is irrational).______

Its wonderful how my opponent just mentioned civilized rationale and I have not the slightest idea how it shows biocentrism superior. Does my opponent even mention Biocentrism once in his case? He has argued defensively (And failed I might add) but never offensively. So moreover my value still stands because it is the only way to discern these two ethical theories. All of my justifications for morality are intact for my opponent never attacked them. My burden was proven by the fact my opponent didn't attack my contentions that prove it true. Which are follows NO BELIEFS as supported by Stephen Stich and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and INSTINCT IN PLACE OF RATIONALITY as supported by Ruth Millikan and Merlin Donald. The only thing that my opponents position will lead to is dehumanizing the human population as denying us our moral worth which is imperative to being human.

What this means for the round.
_____1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.______

You have none so what is this argument even pertaining to.

________2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.____

HaHa funny play on words. Childish but funny nonetheless. In my first speech I give the impact of Biocentrism dehumanizing the population by taking away the only thing that really divides us from the rest and makes us superior. That sure sounds like a reason to vote AFF.

____3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative._____

Okayy do you realize what you just said? You know your neg right? That means you argue for Biocentrism as the resolution indicates. So yes this is all evidence for the AFF lol. Obviously readers you can vote Aff because my Opponent has no idea what he's arguing for anyways.
FallofEmpire888

Con

In many ways the anthropocentrist argument is very similar to the objective morality position. Objective morality has been tried to be justified by the religious authority in order to maintain there "irrational" position. Yet my use of the term "irrational" is a means of showing that my moral standards of other people is subjective, not objective. For the simple fact that my views on morality is influenced by the cultural and researching rejecting views of thought. From Mayan sacrificial ceremonies to the inquisition man has been forced into accepting the slave morality (as Nietzsche called it) of the ruling class and unjustified authority. Now you may be wondering how this all relates to anthropocentrism. Well, ultimately the anthropocentrist position claims that humans are the only species on this planet which has morality. "Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth" Again we must remember that morality is subjective, even if there was an all powerful god in control who dictated a certain moral code that all humans must follow this would not change the fact that morality is subjective.

The concept of rationality is just as much subjective as morality is itself. By saying that rationality is a standard for determining whether a sentient being is moral my opponent has put forth her view of determining whether an animal has morality, but has consistently ignored and failed to show any evidence whatsoever why this should be so. Moreover why we ought to value anthropocentrism over biocentrism? Even if her claim about morality was true this would still not be an adequate reason for human beings to value anthopocentrism over biocentrism. We "ought" to value it says who? a god, a deity, a religious/political authority?

As well as using "rationality" as a moral crutch to try to bring about a justification for anthropocentrism, she has not defined rationality? So because a species such as humans recently aquired the ability to question why they exist does this make them any more moral than other species this argument simply make no sense and requires biased assertions to accept this notion.

Now I will go back to free will as she uses this as a grand separator between humans and other species. She views free will as required to have morality. Yet as I have said before there is no evidence in the natural sciences that prove free will. In fact scientific evidence has shown that humans are more like complex machines that function off reactions in the brain. My opponent had stated that because she could view all the angles in a scenario and select on this decision somehow makes her and all other humans to have free will. Rather I think humans have a complexly evolved instinct, and this complex and diverse decision making process in are brain creates the illusion of free will. A fox can certainly see the angles in killing it's prey. We may see more angles in how to use a computer or do mathematics, but at hunting the fox has different angles than perhaps we. We may think that we are so much greater than the fox, yet there may be areas in where the fox can see more than us. Remember we only evolved traits that affected are survival, and we used different methods of survival so different parts of the brain was selected for certain applications. Some animals might be able to feel emotions in different ways or even emotions we don't have, there sensory abilities may be much more complex, given them the ability to feel more pain. Just because evolution selected these certain cards for us humans does not mean we are the greatest or the most moral. I think we should be open and look at the abilities and behaviors of animals and see what they don't have that we do and what we don't have of there's. This is an amazing scientific period which we should not waste because of the ignorance of the anthropocentrists.

Anthropocentrism does not value animals rather views them as inferior and for use and manipulation of the capitalist, the religious authority and the state. This dominating view is killing animals and ultimately the survival of all sentient beings on this planet. When ignorant ideologies are put into place by the leading institutions of are time, it can lead to great suffering to the other inhabitants on this planet. We should not value are existence over there's because are survival is linked with there's. To answer the question should we value anthropocentrism over biocentrism is irrelevant and an absurd position to try to justify. We should not be selfish and care only for ourselves and steal millions of resources and cause the genocide of at least 200 species per day on earth. Our morality or perception of it is simply a survival tool that cannot be applied to the universe. We had the racists, the Nazis, the fascists, sexists, and so forth and now we have the athropocentrists.
Debate Round No. 3
78 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
this is a bad topic in general and i just find it funny how every neg case i hit at districts and regionals advocates for Bio. Not sure why you do, but anyways yea neg could make it a lot easier on themselves if you just run a sexism K and two or three off arguments
Posted by aldooffline 7 years ago
aldooffline
I'm just looking at how the debate was presented. Both cases have flaws, as does every case. I believe the aff defends a standpoint on the concept of morality, not the actual values, which in turn proves us the rational, overall superior creatures. I honestly thought the neg could have provided better clash and argue better points, but there was too much focus put upon christians and selfishness. Most of the attacks presented by the Neg were more like Ad Hominem fallacies and came from the upmost outrage. whenever i read the neg attacks, i felt like if i were watching Fox news or something-- very biased and fallacious. The affirmative really stated her point and defended against all attacks, even the fallacies. So that is why i place my vote toward icey.
Posted by icey4321 7 years ago
icey4321
glad i occupy your thoughts = ) it means so much to me
Posted by purpleheartshatequeens 7 years ago
purpleheartshatequeens
SHE FRREAKIN VOTED FOR HERSELF! ughh ppl like her bother me
Posted by purpleheartshatequeens 7 years ago
purpleheartshatequeens
she clearly does not understand biocentrism is all biological life and so her second point is ruled out. and moral stats is clearly invalid since all biological life is given innocence but humans misuse it so moral can be ruled out too. clearly neg might not have a good arguement but i stand in negation anyways.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
to be completely honest its easy for the aff to opt out of any "moral constraints" because there is no enforcement implied. yea i guess what i said earlier went misunderstood, i wouldn't suggest morality as a V, but any kind of link to it COULD be good depending on if you claim the moral highground otherwise you're setting yourself up for a solvency burden and if you don't fulfill it you'll lose.
Posted by honestiago 7 years ago
honestiago
Some aspect of morality (perhaps "Moral Obligation," or "Duty") DOES work as a criterion for the case. The subjectivity of morality is actually what makes it debatle. In the context of the resolution, either side can argue the "rightness" of their actions. That's a fair criterion. I agree that using "morality" as a value us problematic. However, you could trumpet some aspect of "virtue" as a value, provided you have a good definition of what those virtues are, and why we should seek them.
Posted by icey4321 7 years ago
icey4321
im not trying to the most moral thing people. just for the record.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
*fathom

The value debate, unless the opponent's value is totally crazy and/or useless, is relatively unimportant in comparison to the weighing mechanism. Typically, either values match or both opponents can maximize them both via alternative means.
Posted by icey4321 7 years ago
icey4321
LD debate is all about value and criterion clash. I couldn't phantom a debate without both.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 7 years ago
Demauscian
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by icey4321 7 years ago
icey4321
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bwalter12345 7 years ago
bwalter12345
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
icey4321FallofEmpire888Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07