Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

I did exceed the character limit, unknowingly. Judges can decide on that point. I think we've both exhausted our own points and it comes down to interpretation at this point, but I will make a few rebuttals. Rebuttals: 1. "Con criticized the HEADING of my first argument for not advancing the argument...." I read the whole thing, and considered the only real point that held wright was at the very end, and it was a small one. So I went back to the beginning and began taking the whole thing point by point, stressing how there wasn't much mass to the first point. "An appeal to a lack of valid, rational reasoning by the contender's side IS indeed an argument, and a strong one." It is an argument, but it doesn't show and vaild reasoning for your side, but merely questioning my side. It is in no way strong, because it didn't give examples as to why it should be opposite of what it currently is. "He goes onto accuse me of appealing to tradition, whereas this sentence of his clearly contains and Appeal to tradition fallacy." Pro said that we have given extended rights to minorities in the past, why not now? I showed how this is an appeal to tradition and that also, all examples were given to humans, not animals which are two different scenarios. I didn't appeal to tradition, while Pro did, and also made a false accusation. "Who exactly sets the paradigm of "superiority" as the ability to operate machinery, converse, solve maths problems and use logic?" Pro is contesting my statement of humans being superior. This is a lost cause for Pro, because it is blatantly obvious humans are superior in almost every way. Who says logic is superior, who says operating machinery is superior, etc etc. I don't understand how Pro can contest this. It is set that we are superior based on the observable society around us. I don't need to cite anything to show the complexity, diverseness and intuitiveness created by man. Animals can't rationolize like we can, animals can't solve math problems, animals can't drive a car, animals can't create things to any level that competes with humans. Humas are superior in almost every way, except for some mechanisms in nature, eg. Lizards tails and biological advantages. 2. I don't understand how my examples of herbivores Bears and the naturalism of animals eating each other is a fallacy. Also how rights aren't related to morality. The reason Pro wants rights for animals is because he believes it's immoral to kill them, does he not? "The fact that animals (or newborn or severely disabled humans, for that matter) cannot act as moral agents, does not mean that they do not deserve rights.)" In the paragraph this was taken from, Pro makes some considerable statements which ultimately boil down to this quoted above. So Pro's argument is that we will be giving rights to animals, who at their highest level of development will have no morals whatsoever. "This is what morality is based on: the fact that one can make conscious choices." Morality is something that has been developed by man, or a religion, to be given to people of a society and class. Morals are based on the ability to understand your actions. That's why morals are given used by man, and why rights are created based on these morals. If animals can't understand morality, there is no need or use for giving them rights. They won't understand the immorality that is being committed by themselves day and night. It is irrelivant to them. Second set of rebuttals: 1. "Yet, he insists on universalising US-specific conditions and rights, as if they somehow form a baseline that are/should be followed globally." I wasn't trying to create a baseline, but show that this will be one of the repercussions. It doesn't have to be a baseline for it to be something negative. "There is no such thing as a "fully functional human". Genetic mutations are a tool of natural selection. Without them, all life would still exist at a primitive level. Granted, most mutations are negative as far as survival is concerned, but to say that a disabled person is not "supposed to be disabled", is utterly ignorant. There is no objective prototype of a human being. No one is "supposed to be" the way they are. They just are." This definitely wasn't the best wording on my part: "fully functional." What I meant was that disabled people aren't the norm for humans. If the whole human race was always severely disabled then we could strip them of rights, but the norm is fairly functional and the small percentage of people that aren't should be singled out. 2. " I did not "simply say" that something else will replace the animal industry (and the consequential money, jobs and food)." He did in fact. He brought forth a couple statistics, but the complexity and gravity of the US economy can't be completely reconstructed as quickly and efficiently as Pro so easily asserts. I have reached the character limit now, good job to Pro, this was a good challenge.