The Instigator
CaleBREEEum
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
aldooffline
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,501 times Debate No: 11578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

CaleBREEEum

Pro

My whole case wouldn't fit, so this isn't my actual finished case it's missing 3 cards oh well have fun.
I affirm the resolution resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.
Definitions:
Anthropocentrism- enhancing and fostering humanity before the welfare of other beings
Biocentrism- considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value.
Ought- should
Obsv 1: The Resolution doesn't call for enforcement.
As the Affirmative I do not have to undertake the burden to enforce a standard which a man of strict honor and integrity would feel himself bound to fulfill. The performance, therefore, of many purely just obligations must be left to the good faith of the individual; and it is neither within the province nor the policy of the Affirmative to apply a metaphysical standard of justice to the conduct of men in their common relations of life. Moving on to the framework…
Things are not equal; people are born with multiple talents and skills, others with none. Just as animals are unique and possess abilities that humans do not, and certain animals possess abilities others do not. This however doesn't mean anyone is superior to the other; we are simply different and have differing roles to fill due to merit. Social Darwinism, through which humans have also developed as a species with different merits than that of a three-toed sloth as well as others This however does not only apply to Humans, take for example we recognize the difference in merit between dolphins and cockroaches, because dolphins merit such based off of aesthetic value, and intellect, whereas cockroaches can outlive nuclear war. Animals have also gone extinct due to natural causes i.e. changes in weather or being out-powered by a stronger, smarter, faster animal, humans have merited their position in society by finding ways to survive simply better and develop qualities and traits others have not. Thus basing the assignments one is given is based on what he is due. If I'm the best debater at a tournament and beat everyone I should win because of such, giving what I'm due because its merits provide such rewards. Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit). In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. This however does not lead to oppression or prevention of climbing any sort of social ladder, because people are being rewarded based on the work and competition they provide which merit their rewards. Giving what each is due achieves a Philosophical Justice as defined by Rawls' and Plato. Any potential harms of corruption are irrelevant when striving to achieve Philosophical Justice. For instance should you feed your baby? Of course, but if the baby choked on whatever it was you were feeding it and died, should we stop feeding our babies, because of the potential harms that could result? No. Much in the same way we must give a being what it is due according to its merit, as opposed to eluding Philosophical Justice when it is entirely possible to achieve.

C1: Biocentrism's main thesis is false
The main claim in negating any anthropocentric viewpoint is that it rejects the intrinsic value of anything and everything other than humans; this is false and goes unwarranted. A.T. Nuyen – Anthropocentrism is present when we ought to promote and enhance human good and dignity. It does not support abuse or mistreatment of animals; as such cruelties would increase such between people in society according to Immanuel Kant. Even further I'd say all species intrinsically values themselves, i.e. Humans say murder is bad. Killing off your own species is detrimental such as lions will tear through a pack of gazelle, but do not kill off themselves because; they recognize the value of the herd. I would say empirically this is false as well since in many developed countries there are laws against the mistreatment of animals. Second not only is there never any mechanism that Biocentrism provides as to how we intrinsically value things, how much value we assign, who assigns this value, why in an Anthropocentric world things are not intrinsically valued, and what happens when you don't intrinsically value something. Since there is no weighing mechanism ever provided within Biocentrism you have no way to weigh it against any sort of ideologue since in never presents you with any impacts as to what happens if you don't intrinsically value everything. Third, I'd say this argument prevents the Negative from even valuing Biocentrism in the first place, because they are saying humans don't intrinsically value things yet, they value Biocentrism, which states that all things must be viewed intrinsically, so either you drop their standard and I win, or they agree that humans do intrinsically value things other than humans, because their case is empirical proof as such and you turn any offensive ground they gain off this argument.
C2: Humans possess the ability of reason, conscience, virtue, compassion, survive better, and can stop detrimental behavior.
A)Rousseau's Rationalism which is elevated above mere intellectual reason looks to the value of the interrelationship of reason and conscience, for intellectual reason is also the power by which the primitive instinct for the good develops into full conscience. (Jean-Jacque Rousseau Second Discourse on Inequality). The two however not only complement, but require one another, intellectual reason develops conscience, and conscience then guides intellectual reason. Conscience without intellectual reason would be the blind love of good, while intellectual reason alone, without the perfecting sentiment of conscience, would be knowledge of the good detached from action and in imminent danger of hubris and error. He goes on further in the discussion of compassion and virtue: Amour de soi-m�me is a natural feeling which leads every animal to look to its own preservation, and which, guided in man by reason and modified by compassion, creates humanity and virtue. Humans not only are unique in developing this, but also in the ability to survive. Health Care has advanced in many ways to even fend off diseases bred in nature, and have allowed humans to thrive as such since we are able to prolong life spans of not only humans, but those in nature as well, i.e. Animal Shelters. Another primary difference Rousseau points out is the ability for man to act freely whereas animals are driven by instinct primarily. Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality: I see nothing in any animal but an ingenious machine, to which nature hath given senses to wind itself up, and to guard itself, to a certain degree, against anything that might tend to disorder or destroy it. I perceive exactly the same things in the human machine, with this difference that in the operations of the brute, nature is the sole agent, whereas man has some share in his own operations, in his character as a free agent. An example of this is a deer will feed in a particular area of the woods however he continues to do such even during hunting season, thus only being able to "guard" itself to a certain extent i.e. scattering when the shot is heard, however while not being able to perceive potentially detrimental behavior of simply feeding in that area in the first place. Thus since humans have developed ways to not only to prolong the lives of their own species through technological and healthcare advancements, they've also created ways in which to protect animals, as well as developed such unique traits as reason, conscience, virtue, and compassion, and being able to stop detrimental behavior as other animals may not. Humans have infrastructures, world economies, and culture etc. Thus our status is merited and we are achieving a Philosophical Jus
aldooffline

Con

Hey what's up glad to debate with you, now let's get started.

We are here to discuss the topic "anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism". My opponent has clearly defined the major terms in the round, so it is without further ado that I begin.

the value which i will be presenting is Intrinsic Multism, which states that because everything has inherent value, every living organism should be equal.

my criteria to support this belief is that of inherent value coined by Paul Taylor. this belief holds that every organism has its niche, or reason for being, even if different talents are sustained within different types of organisms.

Now my audience, i must address to you, what is Biocentrism? Biocentrism states that all animals have inherent worth i.e. all living organisms are of equal value. As the con in the debate, I must prove why and how all organisms should be valued, proving therefore that Biocentrism is above anthropocentrism.

This is my observation: This debate is not about animal life versus human life, as many of us would expect; the debate is about the values of the living organisms, and why they should be valued. Biocentrism provides a situation in which all creatures can survive and have a chance at fulfilling their best interest.

According to Paul Taylor, he explains that inherent value is something every creature possesses. for example, a tree's inherent value may be to provide shelter, food, or other resources, for only a tree could have these qualities. A human being's inherent worth may be determined by his ability to think critically and rationally-- therefore may be able to help support the environment around it, such as planting trees that it has utilized. Yes, every creature does indeed have different purposes, and it is because of these values, whether big or small, that every creature should be considered valued equally. If we could picture the environment as a huge, three dimensional jigsaw puzzle, every creature would be a piece of this puzzle, fitting in and contributing its own part.

"I would say empirically this is false as well since in many developed countries there are laws against the mistreatment of animals"
Now, my opponent tries to make his first point on the round with the allegation that Biocentrism is flawed because we can't abuse animals in some countries, however, this is irrelevant. What does this have to do with the debate? Maybe my opponent tried to say that we can't be biocentric because we need to torture animals to survive as humans? While animals do need to kill each other to survive (emphasizing the fact that everything has its worth and works together like a puzzle), it is just in the law's best interest to not torture animals. Biocentrism never states that life has to be undermined, if that is what my opponent was trying to argue.

"Since there is no weighing mechanism ever provided within Biocentrism you have no way to weigh it against any sort of ideologue since in never presents you with any impacts as to what happens if you don't intrinsically value everything"
My opponent believes there is no way of weighing something's intrinsic value, but i have already set the standards of what I value in every organism, and why it should be valued, therefore, I HAVE provided a weighing mechanism.

"Because they are saying humans don't intrinsically value things yet, they value Biocentrism, which states that all things must be viewed intrinsically, so either you drop their standard and I win, or they agree that humans do intrinsically value things other than humans"
I never said such views in the first place, so this "flaw" drops. to me, it seems my opponent tries to put words in my mouth before i even said them. he has pulled a straw man fallacy, which seems very abusive. All I have stated in the round is that Biocentrism is the best standpoint because we are part of an ecosystem that we cooperate with. Whether the initial audience already values things intrinsically or not, is not for the debaters to judge. We are here to debate our standpoints and try to convince the audience.

"Humans possess the ability of reason, conscience, virtue, compassion, survive better, and can stop detrimental behavior."

As I stated before, humans do have this knowledge, this ability to think critically, and this is our inherent value. We have this unique ability, "Just as animals are unique and possess abilities that humans do not" like my opponent has stated. He agrees with the fact that every creature has its own niche, therefore, its own value. His last contention is merely random information about Human's ability to think, that proves furthermore that we should use our critical thinking abilities to cooperate with the puzzle of the environment. Every creature has its own inherent value in its own unique way, therefore should be valued equally. My opponent has agreed with these facts as I have quoted him, therefore proves that Biocentrism is above anthropocentrism.

My opponent also argues his standpoint on Justice. How does justice give the human being more value than the rest of all the organisms? Maybe in government every man deserves what he is due, yet this does not prove how our inherent worth is better that that of the bio-community altogether. If my opponent is trying to argue that life is the ultimate justice, so be it. Biocentrism does not alter this view in any way. In fact, because we work together with animals, because we have this intrinsic multism, that this justice is amplified. Every plant and animal works together in this net of inherent worth. Do not let my opponent fool you, audience, by making it seem like life will cease to exist with biocentrism, when in fact, the complete opposite can be achieved.
Debate Round No. 1
CaleBREEEum

Pro

Ok I'm basically going to start at the top of the "flow" and cross apply the drops etc..
Notice no clear attack was ever made on the Aff's V/C except he questions how I achieve Philosophical Justice by "giving humans more value than all other organisms,"
1- I never claimed that humans should be valued above anything for that matter go back and read my definition on Anthro it says such. I simply state it as "enhancing and fostering humanity before the welfare of other beings" nowhere is there any claim made towards valuing humans above anything don't let him try to back track in the last speech his had his chance.
2- I tell you Philosophical Justice is giving each their due, therefore since humans status is merited we give them what they're due therefore achieving my value. He never attacks the link between the V/C here so it still stands in the round you can vote first off this.
Next most off his case is just claims, starting in his obsv where he says "all creatures can survive and have a chance at fulfilling their best interest." First, this is empirically false since animals have extinct due to other animals either out-powering them or being smarter. So animals existence or extinction in general is completely non-unique.

Next going to his framework, he tells you that even though things serve different purposes and they have differing values we should still value them equally. This makes no sense, since in nature there are food chains. How are things equal if nature sets up a hierarchy?
Second, I'd say trying to force humans to value a plankton equal to that of their new born is going to cause public backlash.
Third I'd say he never tells you how to intrinsically value things, he just says view things equal...ok? What actions does that entail? What does that achieve? Why do we absolutely have to value things equally? What happens if we don't? Who assigns this value? He never gives you any stipulations which is why in my first contention I tell you it's a bad policy due to that it's so vague. Just because you see things like a puzzle doesn't make the world a better place.

Going to the first response against my contention 1."Now, my opponent tries to make his first point on the round with the allegation that Biocentrism is flawed because we can't abuse animals in some countries"
First, I never said Bio isn't good because we can't abuse animals. I said since we live in an Anthro world and we don't allow animals to be abused, then saying that we don't intrinsically value things is bankrupt because the laws are empirical proof as such since we don't allow the mistreatment in developed countries. His response was irrelevant and completely mishandles the first point of the contention so don't let it hold any weight.
Now the second response, he says he provides you a weighing mechanism...where? Read the NC again and don't let him try to post a new argument in the last speech because he had his chance and he missed the argument completely. He says he tells you what HE values in every organism, which is the purpose they serve in the biotic community, that's fine but that's not a weighing mechanism, and again he never tells you why we should view things equally cross apply the third response to his framework here, and don't let him try to come back and say nothing but humans are valued in Anthro. I addressed this at the top of the rebuttal.
Lastly the third response, he says he never holds such view, however he excepts all my definitions which tells you that Bio is "viewing all things as having intrinsic value," so his attempt to opt out of this with the abuse claim is irrelevant. It's not a fallacy or a straw-man, it applies because he accepted the definition. He mishandles this argument as well it still applies, so again you're turning offensive weight he's gaining off this "intrinsic value" claim.

Going to my contention 2- "Human's ability to think, that proves furthermore that we should use our critical thinking abilities to cooperate with the puzzle of the environment. Every creature has its own inherent value in its own unique way, therefore should be valued equally. My opponent has agreed with these facts as I have quoted him, therefore proves that Biocentrism is above anthropocentrism." This is again a large claim which has absolutely NO warrant. He says we use our critical thinking to cooperate, ok how're we not in the anthro that I claim in the AC? He never tells you why so the first part of the response you can throw out. Scratch that, he never tells you how exactly we are to take actions to "cooperate" with nature in the first place whether in Bio or Anthro. I'd argue that it's literally impossible to take actions that coincide with nature because we do not know nature's intentions. Second I'd say humans have stopped the progress of evolution so in our nature we don't "cooperate" with nature.
Second he says because I agree that things have different roles that I agree they should be valued equally....?
This isn't even a real argument, but I'll still refute. If things are different they're not equal. Cross Apply the 1 and 2 at the top of the rebuttal and the 1 and 2 responses to his framework. You can also use the Aff's C to show this is a ridiculous claim since it goes dropped in the round as I stated earlier, and you can still vote Aff because the V/C stands.

Ok his last response is again very random and not applied to anything claimed in the AC, I said by giving humans what they're due through Meritocracy achieves Justice which is defined as giving each their due. I never said our "inherent worth is better," and I don't have to as the Aff. Again he accepted all the definitions so any new ones he's trying to apply to my case are completely irrelevant.
Lastly his V/C never gives any link to what actions or impacts that are going to result from doing such so at that point it's a terrible policy because we don't know what will happen as a result of acting in such a way. All our babies could die or something ridiculous, we could spawn the next Hitler, I don't know. Since he never weighs his own V/C you look to the Aff's V/C which is heavily weighed, since you're achieving Justice.

So you're voting Aff for the following reasons:
My V/C still stands as it was never directly refuted, comparable to the Neg's V/C which I already told you is bad to subscribe to since he never tells you the impacts of why we should value HIS or what happens when we don't.
That's also true of my argument which went mishandled against Bio when I tell you it's too vague in and of itself.
Third, He never says why we shouldn't give humans what they're due so you're still looking to the Aff's V/C because I'm achieving Justice and he never tells you why I'm not.
Fourth, He never gives you a direct link as to how we value things equally, who assigns this value, how we're to assign equal value to a natural hierarchy, and etc that I already cross applied from earlier.
Fifth, he never refutes that humans have different merits than that of other animals in fact he agrees with that point, so then you still achieve Justice through giving humans what they're due as opposed to forcing them to find some mystical way that he never prescribes as to how we're equally value things.
Lastly again his entire case is full of strictly claims with no actual warrants or impacts, so you can vote Aff because you actually know what's going to happen as a result of taking said actions.
aldooffline

Con

aldooffline forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CaleBREEEum

Pro

Well, he seemed excited to respond, yet he never did, obviously.... all my arguments/ voters still stand, vote Aff.
aldooffline

Con

aldooffline forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
I meant that, I was being polite. I called for a truce, by the way, if you got my message.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
That was mature....
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
Yes, ma'am.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
Lol the RNC=equals cowboy hat wearing racists who think Obama's not a citizen of America and is going to allow the way for the Anti-Christ. I don't even support Obama and I know Republicans are acting dumber than Democrats.
Posted by purpleheartshatequeens 6 years ago
purpleheartshatequeens
okay you two need to shut the f up. no offense to either you, but you guys are seriously acting like kindergarteners. if you need to argue, then do it somewhere else. joking or not joking, this kind of crap is what will keep you both single, lonely and working night shifts. UIL and NFL don't matter. what matters is what's in your speech and who does the better job of arguing their case. so kiss and make up or leave eachother the hell alone. please :)
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
My friend in UIL spoke at the Republican National Convention last year, so it is just as prestigious; it just depends on who's in it. You, for example, will probably end up single, lonely, and working the night shift at Denny's.

I ooze douchebag? That's like the pot calling the kettle black, dear.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
How is NFL more prestigious? Really? Try my friend who went Nationals in NFL multiple years is now assistant speech writer to the President, like I said clown. BA? haha you ooze the essence of Douchebag
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
Aww, how adorable, you think you're so BA, Abilene Christian University and all. Enjoy that while I'm savoring a full ride at Columbia University in NYC, you dolt.
How is NFL any more prestigious than UIL? If you are the most successful product of NFL, then I think they should rethink their strategy.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
Regional UIL you clown. Let me know when you qualify in a real organization, and if you make anything lesser than State in UIL you should honestly just quit. There's a difference when I'm being looked at by ACU w/one of the top Foreign Law programs in the country and you getting sent stuff by BFE-Ville Alabama. If I'm not even your equal how is it I'm doing better than you in a more prestigious organization? Hmm seems you might be slacking kid. Now don't get too upset now I understand that UIL Debate is oh so compelling to watch, and don't worry about me I'll do just fine ;)
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
Not only online, Caleb, but offline as well, I'm headed to regional contest.
I also have trophies and scholarships.
Further, I'm into men, so I won't be doing anything with any females, ever.
Next, don't call me kid, when you're the one obviously having the temper tantrum.
You might be my intellectual equal, but most certainly not my superior, so get that notion out of your head straight away.
To wrap it all up, I wish you the best of luck at nationals. I hope you make it to double-octo's, though I doubt you'll get there.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
CaleBREEEum
CaleBREEEumaldoofflineTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by burnbird14 6 years ago
burnbird14
CaleBREEEumaldoofflineTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60