Humans are better than animals

My opponent started with a quote from an environmentalist basically saying that humans have to be wiped out. This is a very extreme measure of what I am trying to say. My opponent has earlier said, "the bad deeds of a few should not reflect poorly on the good done by everyone else," which proves my point and makes the quote entirely null and void. He said I "must consider trees and "the millions of different life forms inside them" vastly more important than human beings like you and me," but he is merely and desperately trying to incriminate me. Millions, if not billions of organisms, in my opponent's thinking are nothing compared to, in the scenario he described, at most 100 people. This is the sort of idea that sparks one of humans's creations: genocide. Then he began going very extremely into this ideal, but viruses such as Ebola are not actually organisms, and therefore cannot feel. "Murdering" Ebola would have the same effect on Ebola as kicking a rock would on the rock. Can the rock feel? No, and neither can viruses and the other examples my opponent was implying. Then he went on to call me evil. He, all throughout this debate, has been attacking me personally, calling me a evil genocidal Nazi communist. This only proves he has realized that I have already won this debate, and is just angry with me. I am, in his opinion, "preoccupied with the bad parts of human life." Well, as I have proven, most of the "advances" of the human race have resulted in problems for the last couple hundred years. I didn't skip over his point that "the iPhone 6 is not a main source of pollution," I proved it was wrong. I have been using the iPhone 6 as an EXAMPLE, not the sole reason against humanity. In the above round, I talk more about this, so I did respond to his point. "Mass production of things we don't need stands in the way of preservation, but we don't have to become animals to help them. Do we need the iPhone 6, or the countless things a needless as it? No. But ignoring other beings because they are not vital to our own survival is different. You feel compassion for a dying animal on the side of the road, but not a broken phone," to quote myself. In the final debate, I will provide again my two main arguments used in the first round: 1-Humans don't know when to stop: My opponent has mainly focused on this argument, but still has not proven it wrong. As you will see if you scroll through this page, humans have, yes, destroyed the Earth. My opponent "refuses to debate global warming," but that's OK, because there are so many other examples I've shown throughout this debate: extinction, deforestation, and so on. 2-Humans are the most death-obsessed race: My opponent mentioned this once to partially agree with it. He used a weak refutation that war was about ideas, but there are other ways to prove an idea, and if you can kill more people than the other guy, that doesn't mean you're right. No other species has killed another of its own species purposefully for reasons other than cannibalism. Now, a couple more reasons I have provided throughout: Humans are the only mammal incapable of making their own vitamin C, the cat vs. criminal example (a criminal is not better than a cat, is it? A cat may not have ever done anything bad, but a criminal sure has. That's why he's a criminal. The cat is better than the criminal), and weighing on scope (more animals than humans). My opponent has failed to refute any of my points while I have effectively refuted all of his. I have obviously and indisputably won this debate.