The Instigator
Con (against)
17 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Resolved: 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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,391 times Debate No: 11614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)




Let my opponent have the first speech as normal. Oh, LD structure by the way lads. Greatly appreciated ahead of time.


I've very much been looking forward to debating my opponent, and now it seems my chance has arrived.
I wish both myself and my opponent the best of luck in this round. May the best debater win.

Know that although in the eternal scheme of things you are small, you are also unique and irreplaceable, as are all your fellow humans everywhere in the world.
It is because I agreed with Margaret Laurence, female Canadian author that I must affirm:
Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.
Before continuing, I would like to define the following terms as found in the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
•Anthropocentrism – considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
•Biocentrism – considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value
•Intrinsic Value – ethical or philosophical value that an object has "in itself"; may be regarded as an end
•Extrinsic Value – value of objects, both physical and abstract, not as ends-in-themselves but as a means of achieving something else
My value for today's round must be that of The Positional Good, defined as "the idea that products and services' values are mostly, if not exclusively, a function of their desirability." As humans, we have a specific obligation to defend our own survival by the use of resources around us; by this, humanity poises itself as the positional good, the most desirable product of evolution, and willing to fight to retain it. The reason that this value ought to be held to the highest standard in the round is that by using it, I do acknowledge that all things have some value; however, as it stands, humanity has positioniality.
To support my value, I offer the criterion of Ethical Egoism, defined as "the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism can be applied, by its very definition, to moral agents, or humans. Because humanity has survived through so many eras of living, and has consistently adapted to any challenge placed before it – famine, disease, and discomfort – it may be counted as one of the most adaptable species that ever lived. Humanity has an obligation to act in its own best interests over those of others. BY taking ethical egoism and putting it into practice – that is, by doing what is in the interest of human survival – then the positional good is achieved, because by doing so humanity shows itself as the positional good.
Observation: Definition Clash
The definitions of anthropocentrism and biocentrism are listed as antonyms in nearly every source, including the Merriam Webster Dictionary; however, the wording of both definitions does not insinuate that they are antonyms. This presents a very complex conundrum for both sides of the debate, as the definitions suggest that the two may coincide with one another, which leaves no room for debate. For this reason, to preserve clash, the definition of anthropocentrism may be interpreted as humanity being the most significant entity because it is the only being with intrinsic value.
Contention I: Anthropocentrism Improves the Human Condition
According to J-Rank Magazine, "The individual, cultural, and technological skills of humans are among the attributes that make their species special and different. The qualities of humans have empowered their species to a degree that no other species has achieved during the history of life on Earth. This power has allowed humans to become the most successful species on Earth. This success is indicated by the population of humans that is now being maintained and the increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources that are being appropriated to sustain the human species." In essence, this information shows that the use of a human-central society and thought process leads to great growth and prosperity, physically and socially, in our world. By humanity's use of the resources around it in a responsible and careful manner, it is able to further improve its society and world. This links to my value of the potential good, because if the human condition is improved, then humanity's positioniality is assured. Further, by using our resources in the way we see fit, and by doing that which is in our own best interests, the human condition is improved – with this, my criterion of ethical egoism also has a link.
Contention II: Biocentrist Thought is Flawed
Biocentrism, as defined by my case, is considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value. Taking this further, intrinsic value is defined as the philosophical, intangible value something has. In other words, biocentrism holds that all living things are ends to themselves. However, this is simply impossible. When a thing is utilized for the betterment of humanity, then it ceases to be an end and instead becomes a means to an end. For example, according to Science Clarified, antibiotics are made from living organisms such as fungi, molds, and certain soil bacteria that are harmful to disease-causing bacteria, which are used to fight infections and infectious diseases caused by bacteria. These small living organisms – which are to be included in biocentrist thought – are injected into the human bloodstream, where they fight off the disease-causing bacteria. This is just one of many examples – plants such as aloe are used to treat sunburn, oils from marine mammals are used in our soaps and shampoos, the list goes on and on. These things are then looked to for their extrinsic value, rather than their intrinsic value. Humans, by comparison, are the end looking to be protected by these means. This utilization is in the best interests of humanity, which upholds my criterion of ethical egoism, and ultimately protects human survival as the positional good.
Contention III: Humanity Has an Obligation to be Egoist
Throughout the course of history, species of plants and animals have come and gone in natural decline, based on their effectiveness and adaptability. As I said before, humanity is a species that has survived the ages and continued to thrive, no matter the circumstance. Humans, since the dawn of time have used the environment as a tool of adaptation, molding it with their ability of complex reason to produce food, shelter, and art. Because of this, an inexplicable relationship between man and his environment is revealed. IN this web, man is at the top of the food chain, because of his skills of adaptability and guile; while man is a part of the environment, he rules it, and changes it to his whims. However, as humanity's place in the environment is revealed, so too is its burden.
Humans must do what is in their own best interest because it is their duty to do so; if they did not, then they would die off, because they would lose this creative power they have been granted. In this, anthropocentrism has its true moral ground: humans are the supreme beings, the most significant entities, because of their ability to reason, to shape their environment, and to use it for their purposes.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright my 4 other cards won't fit, but oh well.
I negate the Resolution resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above Biocentrism.
Ought- moral duty or; moral obligation
OBSV1: Negative doesn't have to advocate for Biocentrism
The resolution places no burden on the Negative to provide an AFF framework for that of Biocentrism, be reminded that the Neg's job is to negate the resolution not be abusively forced to debate in a box of one Value, moving on to the framework. Simply put Anthropocentrism is bad policy, and is more detrimental than some are willing to recognize. For instance human domination does not only apply to nature, but also applies to other humans, that due to the superiority complex have continued throughout the years. Diamond mines for instance, not only lead to a destruction of nature, but the mass exploitation of African workers, who are brutally physically, sexually, and or psychologically abused. Humans must realize that Humility is essential to achieving and retaining any sort of Human Dignity (recognizing that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment) which when valued leads 1. to the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms- Nazeem MI Goolam and 2. doesn't allow for oppression and abuse to those who may have not achieved equality yet. I'll explain why not only the superiority complex has negative impacts, but why it's illogical, and how nature can even benefit those who are subjected to Anthropocentric harms.
C1: We must not value the superiority complex.
Sheila Collins (1974), for instance, argued that male-dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation, and ecological destruction. One cannot claim morality while advocating for the diverse forms of oppression that mutually reinforce each other. Karen J. Warren- discusses how value hierarchies resulted historically tracing back to the invasion of Indo-European societies by the nomadic tribes from Eurasia in 4500 B.C, Sheila Collins continues: The reality is that the oppression of women, minorities, and those on the low end of social and political hierarchies has now turned to the superiority complex which then dictates that those on the superior side (e.g., men, rational beings, humans) are morally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (e.g., women, beings lacking in rationality, nonhumans) as mere means. Once an individual views himself as superior the one he undermines becomes viewed as solely an animal, and allows any amount of exploitation under the sun. Nazi's felt that a superior and perfect race (Aryans) was to dominate and lead to global leadership. The view of the Nazi's then was that all other races were no greater than that of dogs or any animal, and were treated as such i.e. the Holocaust. Second, in Tibet Buddhist monks remain pacifists while China and others over the centuries have made efforts to dominate them. The Buddhist monks do nothing to adversely affect surrounding societies in fact that remain very secluded and value all life to the point that they tap the ground with sticks to make sure they don't step on any form of life, and because they hold such view they are persecuted and as a result set themselves on fire in protest, since they're pacifists and will not fight back. C2: Nature can provide for those subjected to Anthropocentric Harms
For example in India the caste system oppresses masses of people and views them as inferior and they are subjected to such harms as poverty, which entails many other negative impacts on society and individuals. How the prohibition of cattle being used for food benefits India, Marvin Harris writes:
oprotects the cow as a draught animal essential to agriculture and irreplaceable in India by the tractor
oprevents the establishment of a beef industry, which would lower the per capita calories produced by an agriculture that all ready operates below subsistence level
oit preserves the essential benefits that cow droppings provide to the poor: they serve as the only practical source of fertilizer, fuel, and flooring
oit preferentially benefits the poor, as their cattle are subsidized in a variety of ways by the higher castes
oit preserves the cattle that are well adapted to India's recurring droughts, their otherwise meager dairy output is vital during these periods of famine
So even though humans are being oppressed by other humans, nature still provides means for them to live, whereas their "superior" social class could not value them less. Now to move to the AC....
Start at his Value, there's a few things wrong here
1st- this desirability is determined by who? apparently a random source, at that I say that's a terrible standard because he only tells you things are good if they're decided by some random person or society that a thing has desirability. Which sucks if you were anything, but a Nazi in Eastern Europe during World War 2 since all others were deemed "undesirable," and thus executed.
2nd- he says humans have an obligation to defend our survival, first off the resolution never poses any sort of threat to survival so that's irrelevant, second he's gonna try to say that people won't survive in bio, this is irrelevant as well since i never advocate for Bio, but i'd say even if you try to stick me to it that argument is false because he never gives you any warrant as to why intrinsically valuing things is going to lead to human extinction.
3rd- i'd say the biggest issue is him never telling you who assigns this "good" or desirability, if its humans I already told you why that's bad, because it leads to Nazism and the 4 examples i provided in the NC.
4th- I'd say this plays directly into the sexism K. He says things are used as a function to desirability, aka a means to an end, and once you view things solely as means it leads to the harms described in the NC.
To his criterion I'd say it's in Humans best interest to trash Anthro because it leads to human exploitation, genocide, sexism, devaluing of humans and instead look towards valuing Human Dignity.
2- He assumes that humans are even moral agents in the first place which you can't accept in the round because he never provides any framework as to why just because i'm human i'm a moral agent. What if i'm a rapist or serial killer?
3rd- I'd say that famine is man made and no we haven't adapted because millions die not only in Africa but in developed countries as well from starvation.
To his observ I'm giving plenty of clash that he can refute don't let him try to stick me to Bio just because i can think outside the box.
His contention 1- I'd say first I couldn't find the article he sites which is fine, but I have trouble buying that humans are " increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources." If that's really the case why are we scrambling to get green energy bills because we've realized we'll deplete the world's fossil fuel resource within a hundred years? Doesn't sound too responsible as he claims, which is essential he says to reach any good. So at that point I'm outweighing empirically because we burn down the freakin Amazon Rainforest you clown.
2- humans ingenuity doesn't always lead to prosperity, i.e. Biological Weaponry and Atom Bomb, aren't good things doesn't reach any sort of claimed good
c2- i don't advocate for Bio so most doesn't apply, but i'd say him telling you specifically you use things as means to an end links straight to the NC harms, so you apply them because he specifically prescribes to such a policy.
c3- cross apply the response to his c2
2nd- he never even tells you why we have an obligation, just says we're at the top....ok since he drops the Aff's burden of proving there's a moral oblig to act, you can Negate on face.
3rd- all the harms i provide apply to the AC
Last- He has to refute Valuing Human Dignity, when he drops this vote Ne


I thank my opponent for so graciously posting in a timely manner, as I believe it will benefit us both in the end.

First of all, look to definition clash. As my opponent provides none of his own, other than that of ought, we must look to the Pro definitions of this round. Refuting my opponent's definition of ought is simple; by whose moral code are we acting? Morality is subjective from person to person; no group has a moral obligation, because morality is, again, subjective. Disregard my opponent's definition, look to my own. Further, we can look to the Pro definition of anthropocentrism when refuting my opponent's case.

Moving to the bottom first, just to show my opponent that I can address every single argument he makes, I will refute valuing human dignity by turning it against him. By negating anthropocentrism, he is negating the fact that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value. Therefore, I achieve this standard through my case, because I am advocating human significance, thereby ensuring human dignity.

Against my opponent's diamond mine example, I would ask readers to disregard it. Let me make this perfectly clear: when humans are harmed, it cannot be anthropocentric. Therefore, diamond mining in Africa that abuses humans whatsoever is not anthropocentric. His burden is misplaced. I wonder if next he'll accuse the Pro side of advocating apartheid.

I agree with his observation that Con does not have to advocate for biocentrism; however, his attempt at showing the flaws of anthropocentrism is unsuccessful, thereby leaving my opponent with no ground to stand on.

My opponent's first contention - we must not value the superiority complex - is not accurately supported. Putting men over women is not the same as putting humanity over all other living things. It is not only an unfair assumption to posit women at the same level as animals, it's also completely chauvinist, and not anthropocentric. Humanity since the dawn of time, as I show in my case, has used the resources around it in order to survive, which is completely justified and anthropocentric.
Continuing on, placing anthropocentrists on the same level as the Nazis is yet another unfair comparison, as is saying that humans using other creatures to survive is the same as the Chinese persecuting the Tibetan monks. I will be expounding more heavily on that second example. Tibetan monks act in the way that they do because they have the mental capacity to make that decision. Animals do not. Animals do what they've always done, and will fight to maintain their own survival. In this way, we are not violating a "moral" group of beings - since animals are incapable of moral decisions - and are instead simply using our natural advantage as a tool of survival.

In my opponent's second contention - Nature can provide for those subjected to anthropocentric harms - we can stop right at "the caste system oppresses masses of people". How in the world is this anthropocentric? If humans are being harmed, then this is not anthropocentrism (look to my definition). I would agree that poverty is a bad thing, as is the caste system, so turn this argument on my opponent, because it does not uphold his argument.
Moving on, his well-sourced example of how protecting the cow benefits India is truly anthropocentric. Basically, this entire argument that shows how not eating cattle helps humanity...ergo, it is anthropocentric.
The way he finishes out his case once again leaves no doubt as to why you should vote Pro. He talks about how humans are oppressed by other humans, and how "superior" social classes are bad. I couldn't agree more; HOWEVER, this does not disprove anthropocentrism, but rather proves it all the more. We shouldn't degrade humans. Therefore, we should be anthropocentric.

Moving to my case:
Value: The Positional Good
1. My value is the only value in today's round...while my opponent displays clear, thought out contentions and observations, he lacks a value or a criterion. This really kills the round because it destroys clash, which is bad, if any of you LDers remember.
2. Desirability is determined by humanity. Our survival is the most important thing. According to the normative ethics principle, no value can be universally achieved, so while a small minority might want to wipe out the planet, almost all of humanity agrees that our survival should be the most important thing..unless, of course, you're suicidal. Further, the source is not random...wherever you go, whatever site you look to, the definition remains the same. I got my own definition from the Wikipedia, though there is a similar definition from the American Heritage dictionary. Finally, I'm not saying that any one random person determines desirability...merely humanity as a whole.
3. His attack on my argument that humans have an obligation to defend their survival is silly. Just because the resolution does not explicitly state that there is a threat posed to humanity does not mean there isn't one. Without, opponent, we don't have to have bio for this to happen, though it does stand to reason through my case, just without anthropocentrism... humans are in danger. If we don't put ourselves first, who will? We have an obligation to protect our species, and since we are the only beings with the ability to reason, anthropocentrism wins out. Finally, I don't have to have a specific warrant. If we look to all things for merely their intrinsic value and not their extrinsic value, then we wouldn't be able to eat, or bathe, or build shelters, because we would be impeding on the intrinsic value of other living things. We have to put our own needs first.
4. Again, cross-apply the information I provided against the Con's points, as I have shown that placing humans doing what is in their own best interests right alongside Nazis is an unrealistic comparison, as we're not killing humans by being anthropocentric.
5. His sexism K isn't even topical. I am not advocating that we abuse and degrade women. Women and men can both think and reason, unlike the animals. Further, being a function of desirability is not means to an end, it means that importance is determined by desirability.

Criterion: Ethical egoism
1. Anything that hurts humans is not anthropocentric. Period.
2. My opponent is acting like he's never seen the term moral agent before. It means humans are capable of personal moral decisions, or culturally ethical decisions. Animals aren't. Please don't misconstrue this term, it's an easy one.
3. Famine is not always manmade. If you look to the Dust Bowl of the Dirty Thirties was caused by drought and dust storms, NOT humans. That argument is fallacied. Source: Britannica Concise.

My opponent agrees with my observation, so that's good. But he makes himself look even more foolish when he says he can think outside the box. His arguments make no sense and don't relate to anthropocentrism. Depends on what box, I guess..

C1: The article is online, just look up Jrank. My argument in the card stands, because my opponent simply proves it. We are using more resources than before, that's why we are using up all of our fossil fuels, which is not anthropocentric. We have to conserve if we want to survive...anthropocentrism wins out. And really, I'm a clown? Low blow, much?
Also, the bio weaponry and atom bomb are examples of failures of humanity, because they are instances where anthro has not been exercised.

C2: He should have left this alone, but instead he puts himself in an inescapable box...punny, no?
The mere fact that we use other things as means to an end does not lead to the "harms" my opponent presents. By using these sources, we show our positionality, and anthropocentrism is proven true. So he agrees with anthropocentrism.

C3: 1. Cross apply my arguments from C2.
2. I didn't drop the burden. Look to my last paragraph.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


I guess just starting from the top...
On his attempted response against the moral oblig don't let him try to kick this, because he says it's subjective so we can't use it to try to achieve a standard. However on his 2 response to his V he says it's what almost all says is good, is that not subjective as well? What "good" is? You can apply this also to him trying to opt out of the answering the Nazism analogy.

His only response to my V/C is to "turn" it. 1- he apparently thinks his definition really means about 5 different things, he says "By negating anthropocentrism, he is negating the fact that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value." I'd hoped that my opponent not make random bad arguments, but oh well. Nowhere in his definition of Anthro does it say ANYTHING about intrinsic value, scratch this.
2-"I achieve this standard through my case, because I am advocating human significance, thereby ensuring human dignity." Kick this as well because he never says how just because you say humans are significant you ensure their dignity will be valued, no evidence, no turn. My V/C still stands first voter.
He says when humans are harmed its not anthropocentric....he never states this in the AC and never supports it. This is a random claim with no warrant.
2- look to his definition, says nothing about having to make sure no humans are harmed
3- Diamond mines not only lead to the raping of the Earth, but African women as well
Example/Harms still apply to AC, second voter.
I don't understand how sexism, oppression, Diamond mines, attacking Tibetan Buddhist Monks, and Nazis doesn't show flaws, but apparently I have no ground to stand on which is ok because I'm sitting.
To my C1- Putting women at the level of animals is chauvinistic, The two cards talk about how humanities treatment of animals lead to the sexism towards women. I'm not calling women animals, you're treating them likewise in Anthro. The two cards explain it really clearly, and they go unrefuted, 3rd voter. Humans are going outside what they need to survive, i.e. tearing down forests to build towers for your phone's 3G network. Amazon forest example applies here as well.
Next he says the Nazi's example is unfair, no response again apply it to the AC.
To the Tibetan Buddhist Monks, this is proof you don't have to be Anthro to survive. As well as proves that Anthro mindsets lead to persecution of those viewed as having inferior values as described by the Karen J. Warren card.
Also the Sheila Collins card tells you that when humans view themselves as superior because of rationality what harms that results, 4th voter
2- since Buddhist Monks are of soundness of mind and completely rational beings no human has to subscribe to Anthro for survival this goes unrefuted, 5th voter

He says see his definition to prove that humans won't be harmed in Anthro, he fails to ever show that just because you see something as significant, no harms result. Cross Apply the 1 & 2 responses I made to his arguments against my V/C. Next he says showing how not using natural resources leads to humans benefits in Anthro, when his entire case talks about using up natural resources. There's no real response to my C2 and shows that not using up resources at your every whim can help individuals, not Anthro, 6th voter. He says we shouldn't degrade humans so we should be Anthro, when all my examples and evidence I give you says this degradation occurs in Anthro. Not sure, what he is thinking when writing this response.

To his V 1- I have no value, yet he refutes it at the top of rebuttal this is trash kick it as well. He says it's bad, any REAL LD'ers know I could've gone direct refutation and it be just as classic LD as any. I gave him about 4 responses to every arguments=plenty of clash.
To the 2- I told you how survival is completely non-unique in the NC so again he never tells you why Valuing Human Dignity won't allow for human survival he achieves no weight off this impact. Again he contradicts himself by saying we can't determine moral standards or obligations, yet we can set up standards of desirability? 7th voter, he has no offensive weight, I outweigh on every level including impacts because of strength, length and probability.
3- So we should go outside the realm of the resolution and start applying completely random threats to the resolution to support your case? Alright, I already told you above why just because you recognize significance doesn't mean unique survival, as such will not only occur but flourish when you value Human Dignity, again because of the impacts achieved discussed in the NC, 8th voter. His last little response is to Bio not the NC, kick it.
4-The example is very realistic and directly applies to the AC still because he never tells you why it doesn't just that it's unfair?
5-It's completely topical the card again tells you how the treatment of animals has translated to sexism, don't let him try to opt out of this he's failed to respond it still applies to the AC, 9th voter.
His Criterion 1- Already addressed this twice
2- yea humans are capable of taking moral actions doesn't mean they do. He can't moral ground if people are taking immoral actions, he never proves that just because you're an agent that leads to direct action, still no ground in the round
3- I didn't say it was solely man made, but in most cases it is and he never refutes this.
Lawls, my arguments don't apply to Anthro when you try to change your definition multiple times kid.
C1-So when we use resources it's not Anthro, alright. You contradicted yourself again.
-how are they failures? You say humans are superior because of intelligence and such, this directly shows how just because you can make things that go boom it makes you moral, or good. No weight still.
C2- the Sheila Collins card tells you why when you use things as means to ends solely what harms occur, he's not clever or "punny," it's just embarrassing, I don't agree with Anthro in the least bit, you all know this, this is just silly and frankly insulting.
Oblig still stands and he's still yet to provide a warrant, 10th voter.
All ten voters i've showed are clear and concise reasons to vote Neg, my V/C never goes refuted and outweighs on every level of impact, as well as he simply has no offensive weight for why we should employ Anthro as a policy other than for survival which I showed was non-unique, and occurs when Valuing Human Dignity, he never refutes this. You can negate on face for these two main reasons in addition to the several I provided above. Vote Neg, appreciate it chaps.


I would like to begin by apologizing to voters, not only for my behavior, but also for that of my opponent, it is certainly not befitting the respect the realm of debate deserves.

I'll move down the flow, addressing all arguments my opponent made, try to point out any arguments that might have been dropped, and give a quick wrap-up at the end.

My opponent does not show how morality is subjective, instead he provides a non-responsive distraction by talking about how I say almost all humans believe that human survival to be the positional good. Good can mean more than good as in pleasurable, it can also mean an item. Human survival is the item that has positionality, or preference, over other forms of life. He drops the argument regarding normative ethics, and how no value can be universally achieved. Extending this, however, we can see that there is a difference between complete subjectivity like morality, and reasonable objective ethics, like the positional good. I "opted out" of addressing my opponent's Nazi analogy because a) I successfully responded to the Tibetan monks argument made alongside it, and b) by doing that, I extended the same idea to the Holocaust.

Against his value criterion - I think that's what it is - I will address all arguments.

1. My opponent neglects to look at my observation, which addresses the issue of the anthropocentrism definition. Please look to my observation for that clarification. I do not say that anthropocentrism means five different things, nor am I making bad arguments. I also state that I can achieve my opponent's criterion through my own case, an argument my opponent missed.

2. By understanding that humans are the most significant entity in the universe, it can be understood that we have to protect that significance. When humans do something that is detrimental to themselves, or harms humanity, it is not anthropocentric.

3. Again, the diamond mines example is not relevant. While it is tragic that African women are raped, that is not considered anthropocentric. Once more, my opponent should shift the blame of that on the rapists, not on the anthropocentric view.

Harms: Again, these harms do not apply to my case. Sexism, oppression, diamond mines, monks, and Nazis: all of these things put together, while perhaps creating a very twisted practical joke that not even Rahm Emmanuel would laugh at, are not effects or examples of anthropocentrism, because they act in ways that are detrimental to humanity.
My opponent's case lacks ground and falls - metaphorically speaking - because it is premised upon these harms that I have disproved.

C1: Ok, my opponent's argument here is a little befuddling. First off, the one dated card comes from the 70's, which makes it more than a little outdated. Further, our society today is not patriarchal; instead, women and men are given equal opportunities. Continuing on, how is this anthropocentric? It is detrimental to the human race, undermining the significance of all humans and raising up only a particular sect.

Onto the rain forest argument, this is not anthropocentric either. If we are using more than we have to, then we aren't preserving. Humans will need resources in the future if we hope to survive, so preservation is anthropocentric.

My opponent does not refute the fact that his Nazi example is unfair, so cross-apply that through.

Let's go back to the Tibetan Monks. First off, they are anthropocentric. They have to be, if they survive. They pluck tea leaves to make tea, they harvest vegetables. If they were true biocentrists, they wouldn't touch anything. They would die, leaving the world much worse off. I for one love the Dalai Lama, he's an interesting fellow.

Again, his cards are outdated, so don't even look to them, toss them out, they're useless in this round.

Next, my opponent says that I don't show that when we see something as significant, no harms result. Well, people are always going to die. It's natural. People are going to mismanage and act improperly. However, does this disprove the anthropocentric viewpoint? No. Humans should still be considered the most significant entity because they can reason, because they can think.
My opponent tries to make the argument that my entire case revolves around using resources. While that is true, that does not mean we cannot use resources properly. Again, to misuse resources is to not be anthropocentric.

C2: I completely addressed everything my opponent said in his second contention, so therefore I guess my opponent missed that. Cross-apply those arguments back to this speech.

My opponent once again misses the boat when he argues that degradation occurs in the anthropocentric system. However, NONE of this is proved in my opponent's case. Instead, he shows us the horrors of sexism, racism, beating up Buddhists, etc., none of which is anthropocentric. I don't know how many times I have to stress this to get my opponent to understand where I'm coming from.

V: Positional Good.
1. I still don't know if this human dignity argument is his value or his criterion, but I know it can't be both. My opponent mistakenly asserts that I am not a real LD debater, though I would say that his way of debating is the questionable method. If any LD debaters read this, go through his case, try to flow it. Tell me if you got what I got. A mess.
Further, just because he makes a lot of arguments does not mean he is providing value and criterion clash, which is necessary for a valid decision.
2. Valuing human dignity does allow for human survival, which is why I flowed this value/criterion/whatever-it-is to my case.
The desirability standard for human survival is objective, look back to earlier arguments for this.
My opponent does not outweigh me in anything.
3. This argument does not threaten the resolution whatsoever, not sure where that came from.
Further, we must protect human survival, which is only achievable in the Pro world.
4. Again, this comparison doesn't make sense because we aren't mistreating humans, we're appropriating resources.
5. Once again, old source, b"ut also, if men and women eat the same food, are they both not being anthropocentric? This can be applied to most aspects of life for both sexes. Again, the sexist K is non-topical, because it lacks any sense.

Criterion: Ethical Egoism
1. Addressed several times.
2. Humans don't always have to make moral decisions to be moral agents. It just means they have the capacity, which places us above the animals.
3. "I'd say that famine is man made and no we haven't adapted because millions die not only in Africa but in developed countries as well from starvation." My opponent said that. He's contradicting himself. Again, I do show the Dust Bowl incident, and since my opponent provides no evidence, we can conclude that man cannot be blamed for famine.
C1: Didn't say we couldn't use resources, I said we have to use them responsibly. That's still anthropocentric.
These things are anthropocentric failures because they have hurt mankind ultimately.
C2: This card keeps getting brought up, it wasn't clearly quoted and the impacts are snowball and can be disregarded. If my opponent can be witty, so can I.

Caste system argument, I win that.
Observation, destroys my opponent's low blows on my anthro definition.
Social Classes argument

In conclusion, you should vote Pro on argument/case structure, on drops, on conduct, on argument success, and on overall understanding of the topic. I have successfully shown how all of my opponent's harms are not relevant to the topic, how my opponent's evidence is outdated, and how Rahm Emmanuel shouldn't make jokes about the mentally, I didn't prove that, but I ought to have.

Anyway, vote Pro. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
Saying humans are significant doesn't do anything special lol it's the same crap you don't gain ANYTHING from it. The K is topical, because it specifically goes into how humans exercising superiority over all living things leads to the same issues within humanity, the cards has clear links and impacts. I didn't even get to read my main Cards for the NC and it's still clear. Sorry you're getting upset and lashing out on my comments page of my other debates that don't concern you.
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
My observation clears up the definition issue, and broadens the anthropocentric viewpoint while preserving clash. Your sexism K is not topical because it just because women and African people get beat up does not mean that it is anthropocentric, because yet again, anthropocentrism entails all humans having superiority, not a specific sect.

I can't see how you would win with this case unless you intimidated your opponents like you tried to do to me.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
Lol every judge I hit had absolutely no problem with me using this at all and agreed it stuck specifically to the thesis of Anthro, and I've yet to drop a round with this, still wish I could've used all my cards especially on the sexism K, they're more recent. You set yourself up in your own definition of Anthro and then try to get out of it later in your rebuttals not my fault you did it to yourself
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
I won't be voting.
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
I responded to arguments you were whining about me dropping in a new manner so you could see them. Glad you caught on.
As I said before, your so called impacts are not effects of anthropocentrism, but are instead examples of where sects of humanity have placed themselves above another. That is NOT anthropocentric. I may lack the warrant/impact strategy you enjoy using, but at least I'm topical.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
Oh and I like how you wait till the last speech to bring up new arguments I can't respond to ;) guess that makes it easier to win in UIL
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
Effectively? By trying to get out of your definition of Anthro by saying it randomly entails that no harms will ever occur, you're scattered and don't have any real responses, so you're having to try to add things to your case with which you never provide impacts nor warrants. Stay in UIL.
Posted by burnbird14 6 years ago
You're so, so cocky, friend. I've addressed every single one of your arguments swiftly and effectively, systematically wiping them out, while putting you back in the box you tried to think outside of.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
its cute when you try to be clever and backtrack over your arguments when you can't respond ;)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DontBeRacist 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by savvyboy781 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 CaleBREEEum 6 years ago
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:61