Non-humans animals should have equal rights to humans

Beginning with statements above, I will began refutation. I would like to point out the sheer amount of quotes and hypothetical plethora he exhumes. For me, this is going to be difficult to address, because there's so much! Pro states very weakly to why Human Utilitarianism is NOT superior to that of our animal counter parts, he makes Only one point to justify his platform! As he stated below. Of course animals are not capable of some of these higher pleasures. Does this mean that there is something superior about being human? I believe not. " Well, what is your justification? "If a human could not read Shakespeare for example, should that make them less valuable than a human who can." No, that's quite a subjective and narrow statement. I don't care if another can read Shakespeare, the same I don't care for a Goat that can juggle. That's not a productive purpose, therefore NOT relevant. "In response it could be argued that these higher pleasures bring more pleasure and minimise more pain and therefore are more important." What is your reasoning? "We were driving a carriage on a narrow street alongside a pavement. You see a white man in front of you on the road. Unless you alter your course onto the pavement the carriage would with a near surety kill him. Now on the pavement is a black man. If adhering to the argument of higher pleasures being superior you would have to run over and kill the black man. In the 18th century it was far more likely for whites to experience higher pleasures than blacks. Black men were largely slaves or ex-slaves and certainly would not have access to the level of education of their white counterparts. This would mean the white man should be saved because he can read better. I'll leave you to bite the bullet here." You know, If I was a Neo-Nazi, or perhaps a White Supremacist, I would consider any of that rational or logical, but I'm not, so therefore I don't. That's utter nonsense, no hyperbole meant whatsoever. And even more inflammatory, you made a Statement to whether I would run someone over the road, in the 18th century. I wouldn't run either of them over! That's the correct answer. I'm intrigued for you to give me your answer. You "Bite the bullet", sir. "2. Humans are superior in intellect. This still fails as the word "human" does not require a being with a certain level of intellect. Therefore the distinction here is not between humans and animals but between those with a certain level of intellect and those without it. Depending on where you draw the line some humans will be in the group without intellect and some animals in the group with it.. Think about this. If a human was born without a brain somehow, they would be human. Their DNA would match with human DNA. However, they would possess no intellect. Therefore, there is nothing special or superior about being human. I would expect my opponent to accept that this brainless human should not have superior rights to an animal. Furthermore, numerous animals, chimpanzees, parrots, pigs, crows etc posses superior intellect to many disabled humans." First of all, my opponents makes many unsubstantiated claims and statements, and no references whatsoever. Allow me to refute them. "Think about this. If a human was born without a brain somehow, they would be human. Their DNA would match with human DNA. However, they would possess no intellect. Therefore, there is nothing special or superior about being human." First off, No Human can live without a Brain and function, and the majority of Humans Are not missing Brains, therefore this argument is completely invalid and irrelevant. Humans are the smartest terrestrial beings we know(1). (https://www.google.com.mx...) "Furthermore, numerous animals, chimpanzees, parrots, pigs, crows etc posses superior intellect to many disabled humans." Almost comedic. Could you please provide some evidence to support your claims? "3. Humans are superior in a morally and rational sense. My above arguments can also be applied here. I have another argument here which I may choose to expand if needed at a more appropriate time in the debate." No, your arguments do not apply. You must justify why you think that, you cannot point around at what you said, because what you said is Unsubstantiated, without evidence, unsupported, and wrong. I you want me to take this argument seriously, then prove how ANY other other being is capable of Morality and Rational sense. Overall my opponent has made completely ludicrous statements without any reference or evidence from ANY sources. It was hard to take this in a serious sense. Apologies if there are grammatical errors or typos. I have to communicate Via my Phone and a Spanish Keyboard, Currently I am on vacation.