The Instigator
Con (against)
12 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,923 times Debate No: 11469
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)




[Again, like before, I will begin this debate using the LD debate format, all I ask is that whoever accepts my challenge does the same.]
People… have invested a tremendous amount of effort and time to get to where they are. They really don't want to hear that we're on the wrong path, [or] that we've got to shift gears and start thinking differently.
It is because I agree with Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki that I must negate the resolution:
Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism
•Anthropocentrism – considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
•Ought – used to express obligation or advisability
•Value – to rate or scale in usefulness or importance
•Biocentrism – considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value
•Intrinsic Value – ethical or philosophical value that an object has "in itself".

My value for today's round will be that of Intrinsic Teleology. This philosophy, introduced by Plato and carried into today by philosophers such as Alisdair MacIntyre, insists that as all things have purpose, all things have intrinsic value. As biocentrism is defined as considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value, intrinsic teleology proves biocentrism while rejecting anthropocentrism.
My standard to uphold my value will be that of Utility, defined as "fitness for some purpose or worth to some end." With a value that holds that if all things have purpose, they have intrinsic value, then the goal of my criterion should be to prove that things have purpose. In teleological theories, such as my value, all things also have utility in what is called an organism's final goal. As humans, our final goal is indeterminate due to the complexity of our society; however, for other species, this final goal is more simplified: eat, sleep, produce carbon dioxide, reproduce, and interact within the ecosystem. The final goal of plants is much the same, except even more simplified. Because all things do have this teleological final goal, or utility, then they have purpose by my value.
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 an issue 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: Anthropocentrism Ought NOT be Valued Above Biocentrism

Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself
"The true measure of evolutionary success, in contrast to temporary empowerment and intensity of resource exploitation, is related to the length of time that a species remains powerful—the sustainability of its enterprise. There are clear signals that the intense exploitation of the environment by humans is causing widespread ecological degradation and a diminished carrying capacity to sustain people, numerous other species, and many types of natural ecosystems. If this environmental deterioration proves to truly be important, and there are many indications that it will, then the recent centuries of unparalleled success of the human species will turn out to be a short-term phenomenon, and will not represent evolutionary success." [Jrank] We can see the biggest problem of anthropocentric thought: it ultimately harms humankind. We see this in two ways: loss of nonrenewable resources and decrease in carrying capacity of the land. The anthropocentric viewpoint, while seeming to exalt humankind, leads to the degradation of humanity. When this happens, the so-called superiority of humanity diminishes, leaving it at equal status with all other living things, where it always was.
Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive
In Respect for Nature by Peter Taylor, Mr. Taylor, the man who is considered the Father of Biocentrist Thought, introduces the foundation of biocentrism. "First…Taylor says that humans and other animal species are interdependent. This rejects the view that humans need animals, or that animals depend upon humans. Second, every living creature is unique, and lives in its own way for its own good. This implies that one species cannot know more about what is good for another species than that species itself. Finally, Taylor rejects the argument that human beings are inherently superior to animals." This card is the most reliable source possible for understanding biocentrism because it comes from the founder of biocentrism. Also, this creed of sorts simply proves the superiority of biocentrism over anthropocentrism. Where anthropocentrism fails due to its inability to provide steady, continuous support for humanity, biocentrism succeeds with flying colors by not only providing this much-needed support for humans, but also for all other forms of life as well. Finally, where anthropocentrism seeks to take away intrinsic value from all living things in a biased, selfish superior view, biocentrism instead acknowledges the intrinsic value of all things through their utility and final goal.
So, in conclusion, anthropocentrism ought not be valued above biocentrism, because anthropocentrism contradicts itself and leads to human degradation and destroys the veil it casts, and because biocentrism is more encompassing and inclusive, and preserves intrinsic value for all things.
I wish my opponent luck, and I hope this debate is very productive and educational for the both of us.


As my opponent asks I will use common LD form but my evidence may lean toward sourceless logical arguments.


Anthropocentrism- considering humans to be the most significant living entity in the universe

---Better than opponents because his/her definition implies that humans are more important than non-life things such as (eg heat, water, earth). My value applies to only living things which is the common connotation of the word. The assumption of the Negative team that the definition of the word should be that assuming that humans are the only things of value is a)illogical as it is not the text-book definition. b) also illogical as it is a crude interpretation of the word. The Neg stated they wanted an debate and using a skewed definition of any word would destroy the possibility of an educational debate.

Ought- (meet)

Value- (meet)

Biocentrism- considering all life forms to be of equal value

---My definition is the most common and also allow for a clear line between the two definition. LD is a morals debate and it is illogical to debate whether one thing should be valued above another if both things are considered to be somewhat related. This definition preserves room for a better clash.



First of all the Negs attack has the mindframe that where there is an athropocentric view point there is the destruction of nature. It is unfair to assume that because we consider humans higher than any other living entity that we destroy that other entity for our own gain. For example, Eskimos live in the Arctic, an exrtremely harsh environment. Their anthropocentric view is what keeps them alive and they have not excessively used any resources so as to doom their own future. Also, the entire argument against Aff in this point is from an anthropocentric perspective. Neg states that by using an anthropocentric views we will destroy humans, but this is insignificant when viewed through the biocentric eye. Because there is so much life humans are not a significant loss. Also, nature as a whole does not care about its loss of resources. This whole argument is based on anthropocentrism itself.


This entire says that biocentrism is better but it fails to say what it is better than. This is because it the Neg team believes biocentrism is better for US to survive. The viewpoint of the Neg is a destructive one leading to no human progress. This viewpoint brings us down to the level of trees (unmoving, unable to think, to reason, to progress) instead of looking at our obvious worth. Biocentrism is basically like holding a BB gun in the same level you would hold a nuclear weapon. If humans adopted this view either a) everything on the planet would be considered extremely dangerous and human freedom would have to be leveled to that of a tree (once again unmoving, unable to think, to reason, to progress) to insure safety;;;; or b) nothing would be considered dangerous and there would be unlimited freedom. Even the smallest conflict amongst two things could easily turn into a war. This is obviously destructive mind frame and is illogical not only for human beings but for nature as well.


The thesis of this case is that every living thing should considered important by it's ability. Humans have the most ability in terms of practically everything and should hence be held above everything else, hence athropocentrism. It is illogical to throw away the most important asset of any system and humans are logically superior to other things. So we must preserve nature's most important asset (us) as it is the only logical thing to do. Because of this I offer the value of PRESERVATION. To meet the value I offer the criterion of PROGRESS. The only way to succesfully preserve natures most important asset it is imperative that we progress through success in things such as technology and social ability so as to be able to eliminate the waste of the lesser important systems. This view helps humans and nature whereas biocentrism can only help nature.



An asset is something that supercedes other things in terms of potential success or preexisting success. Humans are so far the only the only living thing able to reason and use logical thinking skills. All other living things act on instinct or don't actually have a mind at all. Humans have made the most social progress than any other animal, we are more technologically adnvanced than any other animal. But the sheer fact that we have the ability to reason sets us apart from any other thing on the planet and makes us inherently better. So humans are natures most important asset.



According to the majority of religous beliefs, man has dominion over the animals put on the Earth with him. Because the existence of God defines the Earth we live on now it makes humans superior and hence anthropocentrism superior. To say biocentrism is better would be to defy God himself as we are in his image.



If humans do not progress through life and evolution than humans begin to lose there value and ability to survive. When superiority is lost in us humans that means nature loses its most important asset. A system cannot work without its key unit and hence progress is nescesary for the survival of all of nature.

In summary, it is nescesary to mention that the opponent presents his case with advantages and disadvatages to humans, an athropocentric view. So the mindset of the Neg is already favoring me. Also through all of the efforts of the Neg all that could be accomplish is either chaos or the loss of value in all living things. Also it is quite likely the human race would not survive throught out the biocentric view. Through my athro. view it takes into account the AMOUNT of worth everything has. So it does allow all things to have worth, just not all equally so. The anthro. view preserves natures unimportant features and the important and also the human race. It also creates a more benefical system altogether. Because anthropocentrism is inherent in life and because the success and progress of the most valuable things in nature are dependent upon it I ask for the Aff vote. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


If I may present my road map, I'll start with definition clash, then I will be going over the Negative case to rebuild, and then I will attack my opponent's case.

My definition comes from the Merriam Webster dictionary, verbatim. Since we do not know where my opponent's definition came from, we can only look to mine, because for all we know he could have made it up when he was typing his response. Also, heat, water, and earth are not traditionally considered to be entities, so adding the word "living" to the definition is redundant. If there is a "text-book definition", then it is mine.

My definition is superior. Again, we do not know where my opponent got his definition, while mine comes, again, from Merriam Webster's dictionary. Also, though my opponent was kind enough to try to preserve clash, it has already been done. Look to my observation that he dropped. Finally, to suggest that I have to prove that all things have equal value is an unfair burden on the negative...while leaving the affirmative with virtually all the leverage.

Observation: Definition Clash
My opponent dropped this, so it stands. It guarantees clash, for one, and disproves my opponent's definition of biocentrism. I do not have to prove that all living things have equal value. Instead, I just have to prove that all living things have intrinsic value...which I do through my value and criterion.

Speaking of, my value and criterion were dropped. For any LD debaters reading this, you know that you aren't supposed to do that. The value is what I am trying to look to for the round, and the criterion achieves that value, and may be one of the most important things in the round. Because of these drops, it will be very difficult for my opponent to win the round, because I can simply cross-apply my value and criterion to any and all of my opponent's arguments...which I intend to do.

Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself
To begin, I would note that the reason this subpoint revolves around anthropocentrism because of the topic. Also, my contention tagline is that Anthropocentrism Ought Not Be Valued Above Biocentrism, which essentially shows why I would try to show why Anthropocentrism is bad in my first subpoint, and then show why Biocentrism is good in my second subpoint.
Further, my opponent's Inuit argument is ungrounded, because, as a matter of fact, many Inuit believe that animals have souls that are interchangeable with those of humans', and also that animals can become human, and vice-versa. With this mystical cultural idea, they revere animals as having value comparable to that of humans. For that reason alone, anthropocentrism is flawed, because it shows that in even the most terrible and harsh conditions, biocentrism can still prevail if the populace will but acknowledge that animals and plants and other living things do have intrinsic value. Going past that, even if the Inuit do use some of the resources around them, and they must in order to survive, they realize that all things have a purpose, or utility. So cross apply my criterion, and then my value also.
Finally, my opponent makes an ungrounded and illogical statement when he says that the biocentric view won't care if we lose humans or resources. However, this is untrue. Just like all other animals and plants and living things, humans are necessary to complete the circle of life, if you will. They serve their purpose effectively. So, this statement by my opponent is false.

Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive
To counter my opponent's first sentence, a) it is implied by the resolution that I am advocating biocentrism being better than anthropocentrism in this subpoint, and b) I did say, several times in my subpoint, that it was more encompassing and inclusive than anthropocentrism. Next, cross-apply my source from subpoint a, because it shows that anthropocentrism only produces temporary progress for humanity, where biocentrism produces a more lasting progress.

Next, this entire argument is pure fallacy. Biocentrism, according to my source in this contention, simply holds that all things have value, and that all things are interdependent, not that all things have EQUAL value. Therefore, my opponent's entire ov argument falls, because my opponent has misrepresented biocentrism entirely.

Now, let's move to my opponent's case.

His value of preservation cannot be met universally in today's round. He is being subjective with his usage of preservation, seeking to only preserve humans and not other things, when my case clearly shows that all forms of life are interdependent and all have intrinsic value. Also, his argument that humans are "logically superior" isn't at all supported by the logic he claims to use, so his entire premise falls. Instead, we must look to my value of intrinsic teleology, that shows if things have purpose, then they have intrinsic value, proving biocentrism. Also, because my opponent dropped my value, it automatically becomes superior.

His criterion of progress I will attack three ways: a) progress cannot be properly measured in my opponent's case, so it is not a weighing mechanism, and therefore not a criterion; b) anthropocentrism cannot achieve permanent progress, so he cannot uphold his value; and c) he dropped mine, so my own criterion of utility becomes the dominant weighing tool for this round.

As for importance by ability, all things have ability, just in different forms. Can humans live underwater? Can they change colors to blend with their environment? Can they grow fur all over? No. So, no, humans do not have the most ability, it is shared in different ways with all things.

Against my opponent's first contention, Humans are Nature's Most Important Asset Logically, I would argue that just because humans are able to reason and use logic does not make them superior; it simply makes them different. It is this supposed logic and reason that led man to believe in early years that he was the ruler of all things. This arrogance is based on supposed superiority and cannot be proven; my opponent, for example, provides no evidence of human superiority. So, turning away from anthropocentrism, let us look instead to biocentrism, which states that all things have intrinsic value. Anthropocentrism can NOT disprove this, so biocentrism is supreme.

My opponent's second contention cannot be proven, but though I am a Christian and I have read the passages that my opponent is referring to, I also believe that that does not mean that we have free reign to do whatever we want to the animals. Just because we were created in God's image and given dominion does not make us superior. Again, it simply makes us different. God's message is that of love, and if we, the supposed "rulers" of all other things act in a way that is selfish, then we are defying God.

I agree with the tagline of my opponent's third contention, so turn this argument against him. Anthropocentrism cannot create permanent progress, and ends up hurting humanity, as I show in my second subpoint. There is no "key unit" in this system, because all things work together to keep the system running. When one piece of the system works too hard, it breaks down; in this same way, if humanity supposes to be the superior being, then it will eventually fall.

Keeping this in mind, I encourage a negative ballot. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to his response, and then round 3.


I will defend defend my attacks and case.



My opponent states that my definition should be thrown out and that hers is better. But my definition too comes from Merium-Websters which states that it means human life should be valued above all other entities. The problem is that later she brings up that her definition means humans are the ONLY life valued. This is not what the dictionary says and should be thrown out.


I will agree that the opponents definition is the superior being that that all things in nature have inherent worth.


The opponent states I dropped it but states that that is how she beat partially my biocentrism definition. If she just stated she used it to attempt to refute an attack than it was obvious clash and that I didn't drop it. I would also like to elaborate on the violation. The opponent states that to preserve clash we must go with the assumption that anthropocentrism means humans are the only valued life entity. But that is not the dictionary definition. We cannot allow for such a perversion of the definition merely so it will give the opponent more ground. This is neither fair nor LD rules. My definition is superior because it is the real one, with other assumed properties.


Opponent states that I didn't attack his/her value/criterion and that they will cross apply them to my case. When I attacked the opponents subpoints I was very obviously attacking the criterion and value themselves. His value/criterion cannot stand without the points he/she offered and as long as I win the points I have won the value/criterion as well.



The fact that Inuit believe in certain magical things does not change the fact that they catch fish to eat, kill polar bears to make fur clothing, and kill seals for the fat they contain. All that my opponent has accomplished with their first card is showing that biocentrism is something to be valued. But in no way should it be valued over anthropocentrism. I stated that the card itself was anthropocentric and the opponent shot back that it was nescesary b/c they were talking about why it was bad. But I talked about why biocentrism was bad from and anthropocentic point of view and the opponent should be able to refute his side from that point of view. If the opponent is unable to think from the side he is on and must make arguments from the side he is going against, than it is obvious he should not win the round. They state that anthropocentrism is bad, but it is only bad towards anthropocentrists. If you look at it from a biocentric view than you see that it is not a bad thing. So it is not a real point for the Neg side.


My opponent fails to understand the basis of my attack. The fact of the matter is that the opponent can only find harm to US through Anthropocentrism. It in no way harms the mass of other things in nature. The opponent is supposed to represent biocentrism and they fail to use that viewpoint in this argument. The second half of the argument is irrelevant as i now agree with Neg definition, but the fact that in ALL of the opponents case, they were unable to present information on how biocentrism is better than anthropocentrism. Look at it this way. Biocentrism hurts--- anthropocentrism. Anthropocenrism hurts ---- itself. So either way it shows man is apt to fail. Unless we have progress we are doomed to fail. So we MUST have this progress, as my case warrants, if we are to survive. So we can follow anthropocentrism and nature and humans live or we follow biocentrism and nature lives but humans die. Anthropocentrism is the obvious choice, and this is why my value and criterion are better and it shows why I beat the opponents case.


First off, my opponents states that my 'humans are logically superior' fail but does not explain how it fails. I explained why we are better and he the opponent didnt actually state why they werent. Opponent states that is is impossible for humans to preserve all things universally and that is not my intention. I represent anthropocentrism and b/c of this the only thing my value talks about is humans. It assumes that nature can preserve itself for the time being as it did the billions of years before humans were on this earth.

My opponent attacked my criterion 3 ways so I will back refute it in three ways respectively. A) Opponent states that there is progress cannot be measured but provided no evidence or reasoning behind this whereas I do. B) same thing, opponent makes claim without logic or reasoning behind it whereas I do. C) Opponent says I dropped his but I have proven I directly clashed with his criterion so this argument does not hold water.

Opponent states that all things have ability, just different kinds. Yes all things have ability but our ability is supreme. I have listed multiple abilities we possess making us superior. There is a saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Humans are the only ones who brougght their gun, and are obviously superior.

The opponent once again states we are not superior, just different; and that i provided no evidence as to why we are better. But I have provided the religion evidence, the reasoning evidence, and the logic evidence. We are the most apt to survive in this world which can be shown by our superiority in science, technology, socioecological thinking, and almost ALL OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD. This cannot be stressed enough. If that's not enough it should become apparent when you see we rule the world that we are superior to all other beings. And because of this we should be valued more that any other thing.

My opponent states that my claim can't be proven and then directly refers to the Bible. Some would say anything in this book is more proof than anything else in the world. God did not say we had dominion over everything on earth so that we would credit a mosquitio to having worth. Mosquitos have no inherent worth whatsoever and God did not intend for us to give them that courtesy. Once again the proof is in the Bible. To refute that proof is to refute the Bible.

Finally, point 3. My opponent states that humans can't have permenant progress, which is his whole point to the attack. But he does not provide evidence, reasoning, or logic as to why this is so. He merely refers back to subpoint 2 in which there is no evidence either. Humans can continue to progress and will always progress, so long as we value ourselves for what we are. The whole basis of my case is that everything should be credited the value it deserves. Not everythig (ie mosquiotos) have value. One thing (humans) have more value than anything else. Ability to help the general populous controls this value. So humans should be valued the MOST, and above biocentrism. I would just like to refer back to my machine analogy. Lets say the machine im refering to is ironically a human. The arm of a human represents valuable things, lets say a cow. The appendics represent a mosquito and the heart represents a human. If humans think anthropocentrically then the loss of that mosquito (appendix) wont harm anyone but the mosquito itself. Losing the cow(arm) impairs the humans and many other things but does not destroy humans. The heart is the most important part. We have to most ability and should be presereved through progress and valued the most.

This was an interesting round, I apologize for spelling/grammar mistake (B/c i am typing really fast) and i look forward to the Final Round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


I will go over definitions, defend my case and attack my opponent's.
Before I begin, I would like to clarify that I am a male, not a female, so that my opponent can stop using female pronouns to address me.
On to definitions:
Anthropocentrism - both of our definitions cannot come from the same source, else they would be the same. My opponent has caught himself in a blatant lie here. To clear up the issue, here is the direct link source for my definition: .
Furthermore, while that is what I said, that is also what the definition implies - "the most significant entity" - and it is also clarified in my observation.
Biocentrism - Agreed

My case:
Observation: Definition Clash
My opponent's argument here is flawed. Just because I used my observation to refute his arguments does not mean that he addressed it. He did drop it, he should just admit it and move on.
As for the rest of his argument, it can very easily be thrown out. Because anthropocentrism and biocentrism are listed as antonyms, then that means that they must be opposites of each other. Therefore, I am completely justified in clarifying the definition of anthropocentrism, which can be gathered from the definition previously provided - that is, human superiority because of exclusive intrinsic value.
Then my opponent says that he addressed my value and criterion through my contention subpoints, and that they "cannot stand without the points he offered and as long as I win the points I have won the value/criterion as well." This is not true. While the contentions are supposed to exemplify and uphold the value and criterion, that does not mean that the value and criterion cannot stand alone without them - not to say that they will, but they could. If he did mean to attack my value and criterion, he should have done so separately, with signposting. But he didn't, so he should, again, admit that he dropped them so that we can move on.
Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself
To begin, my opponent states that Inuit kill fish, polar bears, and seals. Yes, this is true, and I agreed with it. However, the point he missed is that while they do this, they do have reverence towards the animals, and believe that they are to be revered just as highly as humans themselves. Because of this, they are not anthropocentric, but biocentric.
As I show throughout my case and throughout these rebuttals, biocentrism is superior to anthropocentrism. The reason that I looked at how anthropocentrism contradicts itself in this subpoint is to further reach that goal. My opponent shouldn't patronize me for looking both to anthropocentrism and how it is bad, and biocentrism and how it is good, in my case, because it's what I am supposed to do - otherwise, biocentrism could still be valued, but below anthropocentrism, and my opponent would win. Further, my card shows the danger to ALL humans, not just anthropocentrists, which is a danger.
Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive
While that is not the argument that my opponent originally made, at all - because that talked about how it is dangerous for all things to be valued equally - so he's basically dropping his original arguments and running new ones. While this is a rather expansive no-no in LD debate, I will attack this new argument anyway.
First of all, this argument is false. Yes, humans are hurt by anthropocentrism, but through it, animals are also degraded, and humans use more than is necessary of their resources, which can lead to the overhunting and eventually extinction of species of plants, animals, and other life. Therefore, yes, anthropocentrism hurts all forms of life, and I am being biocentric.
Next, we can look to my opponent's syllogism: "biocentrism hurts anthropocentrism. anthropocentrism hurts itself. So either way it shows man is apt to fail." First off, this is not at all true. Biocentrism does not hurt anthropocentrism, though it is superior to it. Where anthropocentrism hurts all living things, biocentrism seeks to preserve the circle of life, and the intrinsic value of all things.
I will agree that we must have progress, but not to survive necessarily. Not in all instances. Further, my opponent does not show that anthropocentrism produces progress anywhere in this argument.
Finally, my opponent is not correct in his end results. with anthropocentrism, we see death on both sides; with biocentrism, we see preservation, progress, and intrinsic value for all.

Now, on to my opponent's case:
Logical Superiority:
My opponent says that I didn't explain how his superiority argument failed, when in fact I did. As I said before, the logic he claims to use, but really doesn't, does not support his argument, so it falls.
Value: Preservation
My opponent missed the point of the argument. He is being much too selective with his value of preservation, and therefore is only achieving a minute amount of preservation. While his value cannot be universally achieved on his side, it can be achieved on the negative.
While nature preserved itself for the years before human life appeared, when humanity began its anthropocentric holy war, if you will, it was then unable to do so. Deforestation, smog, factories, development: these things made it impossible for other forms of life to preserve itself. Therefore, by taking the anthropocentric point of view, my opponent is only preserving humanity, while leaving all other living things to suffer.
Criterion: Progress
A) My opponent provides NO reasoning or evidence supporting his claim that progress can be measured. Since he did not, I can reason that it cannot be measured. His argument falls, as does his criterion.
B) Cross-Apply all the information I have presented in this debate as to how anthropocentrism achieves no progress, like my card in my subpoint A.
C) He has not proven, in any way, shape, or form, that he has directly clashed with my criterion, so no, my criterion stands.
Ability Argument:
While my opponent obstinately asserts that our ability is supreme to all others, he cannot and does not prove this to be true. The only two abilities my opponent gives us that make us "superior" are logic and reasoning. However, this is not proven anywhere in my opponent's case to be superior abilities. Therefore, we can conclude that they are not. Further, my opponent's "knife to a gun fight" argument does not hold up, because all things have certain abilities that might be considered "guns" in proper circumstances.
Contention 1: Humans are Nature's Most Important Asset Logically
My opponent claims to have presented evidence proving human superiority. However, all he has presented is logic and reason, which cannot be counted as evidence because even reason may sometimes be fallible, as my opponent's arguments show.
Further, just because humans are well equipped to live in the world that WE have created, does that say that we are equipped to live in the world outside? Again, as I said before, we cannot grow fur, cannot breathe underwater, cannot carry water in humps to survive in the desert. We are not superior. We are just resourceful.
Contention 2: According to Religion Man is Superior
My opponent does not refute the claim that this superiority cannot be proven. After all, if we are looking to a supposed Biblical standpoint, most everything I as a Christian believe rests on faith, which is completely cognitive and cannot be proven. I do not refute the Bible when I say that all things have intrinsic value. I recite it. As I said before, the Biblical message is that of love, not exclusion, and anything or anyone that says different gives the Bible a bad name.
Contention 3: Progress is Necessary to Preserve Human Life
My evidence is my second subpoint. Again, cross-apply everything I have said thus far, as all things are valued, just in different capacities. His analogy is selfishly based and proves my point.


Mr_Jack_Nixon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
Thank you very much! You did a wonderful job also, and I wish you the best of luck in CX.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 8 years ago
Well CX is very policy related with cold, hard facts; whereas I see LD as more of an opinionated debate with less evidence that can be considered fact. That is why the brunt of my attacks were completely analytical. You did a good job so I partially voted for you. =]
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
Go ahead and vote for yourself :3 I gave us a tie on conduct.
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
I agree, I thought you did very well for someone who does CX...though I would expect more evidence from someone who does it.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 8 years ago
And I do CX so I am not very confident in my LD abilities. GO CX!
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 8 years ago
I'm so sorry... I certainly had no intention of forfeiting. I appologize for the unintended forfeit. It was a very good round though. =)
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
My word people, THAT is why I refuse to do any TFA/NFL, because those stupid circuits are turning LD into just another CX!
Posted by CaleBREEEum 8 years ago
Yea Cherrymenthol I just got back from my tournament my neg ran two A's, 3 DA's including a K.
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
*sigh* Vote for me!
Posted by burnbird14 8 years ago
No,no,no don't forfeit!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 8 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by burnbird14 8 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60