Humans are not different from animals.

I don't think my argument has been quite understood yet. Once again, there are no "objective" animals. "Animal" is just a term we have thrown on a large group of creatures. What we include and exclude from this group is up to us, exclusively. If there is a good reason why humans should not be counted as animals, then humans should be excluded from this group. It so happens that currently, humans are (biologically) defined as animals. But should they be defined as an animal? The biological similarities between humans and other animals is simply a result of how we have defined the term "animal" in the field of biology. I have shown, however, and my opponent does not deny, the possibility of defining animals on different biological terms, that excludes perhaps such traits as language and art. There is no necessity of defining humans as animals from a biological standpoint. That's why my opponent's biology point is at best moot. At worst, it actually helps my argument that we are flying in the face of technological progress, but I'll get to that point later. For round 2 I have 4 other points to make, 1 rebuttal and 3 responses to my arguments. 1. My opponent insists that because we share instincts with animals, we must be defined alike. Surely the instinct of love is found even in bacteria (not animals)? Surely there are plants with the instinct of self-preservation (not animals)? The point is that emotions do not qualify an organism because they are impossible to measure (at least, until we invent accurate mind-reading devices). If you can't measure it, the qualification for an organism becomes uncertain, and that just moots the entire debate. 2. Responding to my first point, my opponent believes that animals have the capability for technological development. In fact, no animal has ever developed a new technological outcome. That's despite billions more animals having lived on this planet than humans. Not one single example of a developed technology. Why is this significant? Because the cause of our technological drive has been our investigative nature. However, the scientists who are at the forefront of this drive claim that humans are animals. This is an example of an inconsistent definition - on the one hand, humans and animals are grouped together, on the other hand they are distinguished. I think distinguishing is the better option because it legitimizes the work that these scientists, engineers etc do. 3. On the point of socially dangerous consequences of adopting the resolution, my opponent ignores the majority of my argument. His only case is his admiration for Marx and Nietzsche. The infamy of said philosophers is not the crux of my argument, however. An animalistic view of mankind leads to immoral behavior. Indeed, all four normative ethical frameworks are opposed to it. It discourages individualism because it encourages cheating the system. It places no importance on justice, indeed, given the lack of justice among animals it would even appear to be counter justice. It denies people moral rights because animals have no morals and thus no moral rights. It's counter to utilitarianism because humanity would prefer to be seen as human, not as an animal, as suggested by the very infrequent use of the term "animal" to describe a human being (and when it is used, it is always in a derogatory manner). 4. On my point about the necessity of assigning animals moral rights, my opponent finally comes up with a cogent model. However, his Utopian vision of an animal kingdom and a human kingdom is as silly as it sounds. We all share the same planet, thus we cannot help but influence each other, making freedom from human intervention about as crazy as humans having freedom from avian intervention. My opponent also says that morality is a human concept and thus should not be applied to animals. I agree! That's why the line needs to be drawn. I will be awaiting my opponent's case.