An animal's life is worth just as much as a human's.

In response to my claim that "We typically love our brothers, sisters, children, and parents more than we love our pets," Pro said, "Many of us care about our pets just as much as our family, and consider them to be a part of our family." His response does not negate my claim because "many" does not contradict "typically." I can grant that many people care just as much for their pets as they do their family, but still maintain that typically people don't. If you asked the average parent whether they'd rather you shoot their dog or their daughter, they'd choose the dog because they value the daughter much more. And most of us would consider a parent to be a barbarian if they so much as had difficulty making that choice.In response to my claim that "Almost all of us have friends and family, but not all of us have pets," Pro said, "Something that is more common or applies to everyone, is not necessarily better than something that applies to less people." That is a good point, but let me explain my meaning a little further. Pro is making a general claim about animals in his resolution, and he argued from how useful animals have been to humans. My point is that if fewer people have benefited from animals than have benefited from other people, then in general, people have more instrumental worth than animals.There are some people who value their pets more than other humans, but I think they are wrong to do so. For example, I have a friend with PTSD, and she has a service dog she takes everywhere with her to keep her from having anxiety attacks. Her dog is her best frien, and she scarcely has any human friends. So you'd think she benefits from her dog more than from humans. But consider what goes unnoticed. Humans made the clothes she wears. Humans made the apartment she lives in. Humans made the truck she drives. Humans trained her dog. Humans pay the taxes that go to support her since she is a disabled vet. And that money goes to buy dog food for her dog as well. She may not notice how valuable humans are to her because she doesn't have as much face time with them as she does with her dog, but that doens't mean they are worth less than the dog just because she doesn't notice.Pro attempts to argue that animals also have equal intrinsic value with humans. I don't think any of his arguments support that view. He says that animals have better moral fiber than humans. But moral fiber doesn't add or subtract to intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the value something has because of what it is. All humans have equal intrinsic value even though some are more moral than others. So the morality of animals is not relvant to their intrinsic value. It is only relevant to their instrumental value.But besides that, pro hasn't given a very good argument for why we should think animals have moral fiber at all. We don't know that animals behave out of any sense of right and wrong like we do. They simply act on instinct or on what they are trained to do. They don't have "pure hearts." I doubt animals are even capable of moral reasoning, i.e. understanding the concept of justifying their actions or having morally justifiable reasons for their actions.Pro points out that while humans destroy the earth, animals don't. But animals don't care about preserving the earth like many humans do. The only reason they aren't destroying it is because they can't. They're not as technologically advanced as we are. But cats and dogs have been known to be destructive of wildlife. Cats kill for the pleasure of it, and they don't care if it's a mocking bird. Dogs kill cats for the sport of it without any regard for the cat owner. Humans are the only species that sacrifice for the sake of other species. It is our species that protects animals, putting them on endangered species lists, forbid hunting them, etc. Animals that hunt give no thought to wildlife preservation.Pro points out again that the relationship a person has with their pet can be just as special as with their friends. I grant that. But it's not enough to support his resolution, which is that animals in general or all animals have the same worth as humans in general or all humans. There are always going to be exceptions, but you can't make a general claim based on exceptional cases. The fact that some people value their pets just as much as their friends does not support the claim that the lives of animals are just as valuable as the lives of humans, in general.Pro admits in the end that animals don't help us as much as we do, which negates his claim that animals have equal instrumental worth with humans. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate, and thanks to Pro for sharing your thoughts and arguments.