Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

My opponent stated "According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'superior' means higher in rank, status, or quality." Yes, that is all well, you have discovered the denotation of the word 'superior,' however you are implying that having superior technology makes them superior to the human race entirely, not in, say, one particular aspect that they are superior in. If the race of advanced species has superior technology, but are not as intelligent as the average human being, or weaker than the average human being, that would mean that, by definition, are inferior, but by your logic because they are inferior or superior in one aspect, they are inferior or superior in every aspect. Let us say that Humans are superior in strength, but the advanced species is superior in intellect (by average, as every person, or alien is different from the next) then by your logic they are both superior to each other, rather than being superior in one aspect. Also, please keep in mind that being superior, as in being in higher in rank or status does not mean that you are superior in quality. Superiority in one area does not make you superior in general, you must weigh the (no pun intended) Pros and Cons before making such judgement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent stated "I'm not saying that every human being is necessarily responsible, but if an animal is going wild while the owner tries to prevent them from doing so, is that the owner's fault?" I would also appreciate it if you quote what I said instead of paraphrasing what I said to use it against me, it does not gain many points in an argument. What I said was that animals are given up because the owner can not be responsible for it, which is why they give them up, and it can be because of financial problems, not that euthanasia stems from irresponsibility, but it is a cause for it. You are not even seeing the bigger picture anymore, but focusing on small example, on whether or not the dog is feral or non-domesticated. Also, most animals become aggressive because they feel the need to defend themselves, in which case majority of the time is caused by being abused by previous owners and has grown a, rightfully earned, distrust of human beings... however, since the definition of domestication is the "adaptation to intimate association with human beings," because of his distrust of humans due to the animal's past abuse, it must be euthanized... The owner does, as a matter of fact, sign the paperwork for the adoption process, entitles YOU, the 'superior' being, the human owner, to take full responsibility for the animal. A domesticated animal only lashes out if it feels threatened, remove the aggressor and you have a calm animal, simple solution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states (again) that "But what if you have a wild animal tearing up your house and putting you children in danger?" Once again, an animal only lashes out if it feels threatened (which can stem from past abuse), and you sign a waiver that you are completely responsible for the animal. I also stated in my previous argument, the animal is normally put to sleep because of this non-domestication. The reality is, these animals have been abused in the past by humans who have either been careless or deliberately cruel to others, and I do not see how it is right that a human may be abusive to animals and get a light sentence while the animals that have gone through the abuse have, rightfully, grown a distrust toward humans in general and feel threatened when around, thus no longer being domesticated and end up being euthanized because of this. You are justifying their euthanasia and again and not mentioning HOW they got those mental issues and became non-socialized. You are the blaming the animals for reacting as any human would under such circumstances of being abused by another species entirely, and sometimes by humans themselves (See misanthropes), they grow a natural distrust towards them. The cats and dogs that are 'saved' from abusive relationships become defensive and are acting on instinct, as all humans have, called fight or flight, and since they are locked in a cage or trapped in the corner, they can not flee, so they fight. What about those who abused those animals? They get out of jail or pay a fine and are on their way, but the animals are put down because of what they did. The animals personality is not what is making it violent, it is the distrust of humans that cause them to be taken back. And lastly, you directly state that, because they are abused by humans, they should be euthanized in the first place... justifying the death of the abused animal and disregarding the 'superior' being that abused them, the Human. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states that: "It isn't true. There will never be absolute luxury. Just like animals, we have our hardships, too." I must share my disbelief at this statement... do humans necessarily need a smart phone? Why not a regular phone that provides calling and texting? Even a telephone is not needed, after all we did go without it in the past, correct? Do we need television? Why not just read the newspaper? Those forests aren't gonna chop themselves down, right guys? Did I say that humans do not experience hardship? No, I have not. Have I stated that humans live luxurious lives? No, once again you are paraphrasing what I said and are attempting to use it against me. You stated that animals can not use an iPhone and a Television, which ARE luxury items in and of itself and not necessary for the survival of the human race, after all we survived without them before, have we not? You state that Humans are past that hardship, being survival, and now deal with things like politics, technology, educations, jobs, etc. So, how are these not lives of luxury? Perhaps because you have been spoiled into thinking that these are not luxuries, as even humans in third-world countries have to struggle in survival. However, enough about how spoiled the human race has become, the fact remains that humans have a lot of luxury items, and stating that an animal can not use one, let alone has a use for one, is a bad argument. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent restates the definition of superior. My response is: You once again imply that being superior in one aspect makes you superior in every aspect, or just in general. Yes, you would be superior... ON THE FOOD CHAIN. To clarify, my statement of "If two species feasted on each other, would that make the two superior to each other at the same time?" was mostly to humor your assertion that eating one another makes the being superior to the other. Decent point on predator and prey, which definitely shows how one may dominate another on the food chain, but it does not make them generally superior to another. All it proves is that one is superior in strength or speed. Two predators at the top of a chain, say a Lion and a Tiger, may fight each other, and one that wins eats the other. The one that wins may be superior to the other, but it does not mean that the entire race is superior to the other, as the fight could go either way. Humans are isolated from wildlife, and thus are not apart of the food chain as they do not live amongst those higher in the food chain. Does not make them superior, as I have suggested, a feral child grows up in the wilderness. I do not doubt the human's ability to adapt to situations, as it is what humans pride themselves on, but humans are not superior in all aspects as you are saying. I will agree with you a bit on the last part, humans have shown to be superior at adaptation and intellect, however, my question still stands, does being 'superior' in certain aspects make your life more value than another that is superior in other aspects? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am comparing hunting for sport to hunting for survival; food