Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

I admit that the topic I have chosen is misleading as my argument is actually on Animal Rights, which I have clarified in the comments section, with the value of life as a supporting detail rather than the main idea. Copied and pasted from my comment posted 5 hours ago, which was after your first response: >>> To clarify, I am for Animals have rights, as saying animals have no rights because they are 'inferior' to Humans is arrogant and foolish, however I am not stating that animals should have equal rights to humans, as that would be foolish in and off itself, but rather Animals should have LESSER rights, enough to protect them from abusive humans (Jail time for killing animals), prevent them from being needlessly killed because they are considered unwanted by humanity (Foster homes for animals to prolong the process of euthanasia, a few years compared to a few weeks), and possibly even considering wildlife and domestic animals as a whole when making environmental changes (Destroying forests to benefit your own survival? I guess it is justifiable, but at the very least plant one or two trees for every tree destroyed. Take responsibility for animals that lose their home due to destroying said forests by finding them a new home. Prioritizing ones race above others is fine, but doing at the expense of another is not). And finally, the scientific experiments done on animals is sickening and should be better managed (not stopped, as it would be an unreasonable demand, and it it would be disregarded) to better suit the life of animals. If an experiment proves far too dangerous to test on humans, it should not be tested on animals. If, however, the experiment will have a low or non-existent chance of the death of the animal, then perhaps they can. Also, a failed experiment in which an animal is suffering must be euthanized to minimize the pain it will cause, the experiment must not be done again until significant improvements are done. Blah blah blah Point is, animals lives should be put more into consideration than it is right now, and the aftermath of the choices humanity makes affects animals in many ways, as humans should take responsibility for their actions. <<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now to answer you: My opponent states: "The shelter employees do a very good job of persuading people to adopt a shelter pet." You are once again missing my point; the owners were the ones that have made them the way they are. My point still stands. The point of the shelter is on why animals need rights, or Lesser Rights, as stated in my opening argument. Another thing I would like to ask is, if having a pet be aggressive due to 'mental issues' is a good enough reason to put them to sleep, why do they not put humans with 'mental issues' to sleep? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states: "I would also like to say that humans do deserve the 'luxuries' we have, since we created them." Cool, so... your point is? I said humanity does not NEED luxury items to live, I never said that they do not deserve it. Please stop paraphrasing me to try to use it against me, and if you are, at least do it correctly. Humans have created luxury items, yes. Do humans deserve them? That depends on the person. Do all humans have luxury items? No. Are you going to be making more of these assumptions? "My opponent acts like he/she is above this, which, evidently, is not true." So, knowing that luxury items are not needed for survival makes me act like I am above luxury items? Are you listening to what you're saying/reading what you are typing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states: "... con is completely missing the point of the debate." I suppose this would be mostly my fault because of my title, but I clarified my main point and supporting ideas in the comment section. My argument is on the value of life: 1. Why is the life of a Human worth more? 2. Why is the life of an Animal worth less? 3. Comparing and Contrasting: Human Life vs Animal Life. 4. Animal Rights (Stated in the comments to add clarity to my argument). Are Humans superior in more aspects than other animals? Undoubtedly. My question was would this make their life worth more than that of another animal. Is the life of a human worth so much more than that of an animal's that when a human kills an animal he gets punished lightly, but if an animal kills a human in self defense it gets killed? Also, not to be anal, but: * True * To domesticate is to make it more friendly to humans. Why would another animal need to do this? Other animals see each other as equals and competitors, not as being superior beings that are high enough to tame another animal as a pet. * Humans are capable of many languages, yes, and have found ways to communicate effectively. I do not dispute that * Humans do not, and possibly will never know how the Universe yet, only create theories on how it works. * True. However, an animal would have no need for it. * E=MC^2 is not an explanation of how things work. Energy = Mass x Speed of Light^2 tells you how much energy there is inside a certain amount of mass. It does not tell you 'how things work.' However, it has paved the way for more scientific achievements. * Humans have the power to destroy the environment, and the power to fix it. The environment would not need protection if humans have not messed it up in the first place. * Space exploration is such a nice thing. However, we have not even visited Mars yet, let alone solar system, let alone left our galaxy, let alone universe. Humans will, undoubtedly change the world, but for better or worse is not clear. So... back to the topic that I meant to choose: Animal Rights. Lesser Animal rights or no? I will not disagree with you that, yes, humans are superior to animals, but I will on the worth of one life compared to another (as I stated my reasons in my opening argument)