Alternative Reality

There is essentially a fundamental difference between the con's and pro's concept in this debate. It is this fundamental difference which leads to con to think the pro is illogical and the pro to think the same of the con. I shall try to express this fundamental difference, which only became apparent to me in the round 3 debate from pro, in the simplest and clearest manner:To the pro, if two different species have extremely similar requirements, they are inevitably bound to compete for survival, especially if one tries to use the others as what we would see as 'slaves'. Thus, it is only logical that the only way for species so similar in requirements but different in their physique, and perhaps brain structure, to not go extinct are if they stop competing and accept territorial divides.To the con, if you have a less intelligent species which can easily interact with a more intelligent species, there is inevitably a mutually beneficial relationship that is bound to form. The less intelligent, which in this case happen to be stronger-built on average, would serve well as the implementers of the intelligent, and in this case physically inferior, species' plan (which will probably, 99% of the time, be better than any plan for a society that the less intelligent species could come up with). Therefore, the less intelligent, but stronger, species needn't use their brute strength against the weaker one, since the weaker one has intellectual benefits which, although relatively less intelligent, the less intelligent species is intelligent enough to comprehend (since Neanderthals were known to comprehend linguistic communication, although they preferred to use symbols and images for phrases, similar to eastern languages, rather than the modern-day letter-by-letter system of written communication). Therefore, especially because they have extremely similar requirements and needs, the Neanderthals and homosapiens would inevitably form a mutually beneficial relationship.I shall now briefly re-iterate why the latter is far more likely to be the reality than the first. And shall negate your points raised against it.As I said, we could have two separate schooling systems, one far more practical-based and the other basically identical to the current system (unless a superior one is created) for homosapiens. I shall negate your rebuttal to this stating that I actually was very aware that, just as some homosapiens are built for more physically-oriented jobs, there would also be Neanderthals capable of doing mathematics and science to a far more theoretically challenging degree than average homosapiens (I specified maths and science because linguistically, it's very unlikely that the more basic brain of Neanderthals would process multiple systems of reasoning, hence language than homosapiens, after all it is only a select few homosapiens who truly speak more than two languages fluently, usually only ever speaking a third language with mediocre fluency). This is why I stated that, depending on test scores, we would constantly leave opportunity for a homosapien to prove themselves to be less able to learn theoretically and thus instead of putting them through the shame of being sent to a 'special school for the less capable' we'd merely be sending them to an 'alternate learning system, tailored for the average Neanderthal' who are not necessarily less intelligent than homosapiens just intelligent in processing and memorising physical acts, rather than theoretical concepts. I doubt they'd get bullied because we'd barely send them alone, usually there'd be a batch of homosapiens, or Neanderthals, together in a school (almost like an Asian crew in an American stereotypical high school movie). They would barely ever be truly alone. Also, after school interactions wouldn't be prevented for mingling with their own kind. I see very little likelihood of either species not seeing how this is a more beneficial arrangement than being divided.The reasoning behind the mating law was so the Neanderthals could keep themselves beautifully adapted to carry weights heavier than most humans could and thus be more adept for manual labour, this is actually better for both species than species less intelligent than homosapiens and weaker than Neanderthals to replace both (which potentially could happen if we didn't ban inter-breeding between the species, this is extremely different, and incomparable to, inter-racial mating because all races have the same DNA for mental function and muscle mass (usually, although blacks are known to have higher average muscle mass) so inter-racial breeding doesn't actually make our species more weak or less intelligent. I'm sure that no society would be better off with a Neanderthal-homosapien breed as opposed to a dynamic-duo system of thinking species and working species to make a society function well.A lion differs to a tiger in far more ways than the Neanderthals differ to homosapiens. A lion is naturally sociable, they hunt in packs and care for young till late adolescence. A tiger is naturally solitary, larger and striped, hunts alone and the father usually ditches his children early on in their life, bringing back food for his girlfriend only (in fact only at the baby stage have tigers been seen to bother searching for young if they go missing). You could say that lions run families in a stricter, less hippy-like manner, than the tigers if that makes sense... However, the only differences between homosapiens and Neanderthals lie in the Neanderthals being... I don't' know if it's right to say 'uglier', because probably homosapiens' hairlessness is ugly to them, but basically the only real difference is in their physique and mind, and if the physique is no longer different it would be extremely hard to tell the difference and hence the inter-breeding law would cease to be feasible and thus both species would mate and create a homosapien-Neanderthals hybrid species. This is the issue.Thanks for this debate, it was actually fun to think about.