Human Superiority. Man is the most intelligent species on the planet etc...

Do not watch the video until you get to [3], please. I thank my opponent for their last round. I will start by addressing my opponent's arguments, then take care of the questions later on. My opponent claims, "The betterment of our species is merely a side effect which barely occurs..." This is entirely false. From 1930 - 2010, the average life expectancy has increased over 30% [1]. This is almost entirely because of medical advancements which are a direct result of our intelligence. No other species can make such a claim, that their intelligence has caused their life span to be significantly extended over such a short period of time. Our intelligence has allowed us to survive in all corners and all climates on this planet and even off the planet. No other animal can make that claim. My opponent has correctly stated that animals have lived in some of these areas, however, they cannot point to a single animal that has lived in multiple locations, only a different one for each. My opponent attempts to down play the significance of going to the moon. However, the significance of the historic event isn't that important to this debate. The real importance is in having the technology and intelligence to be able to accomplish such a feat. We've done something that no other animal has even come close to doing, and we did it with intelligence. Most animals work off of physical ability that they've obtained from evolution, not from intelligence that they, themselves, have gathered from observations of the world around them (e.g. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, i.e. Intelligence). My opponent claims "Each creation has done harm to mankind whether directly or environmentally." This is misleading at best, utterly dishonest at worst. EVERYTHING has harmed something, there is absolutely nothing that has not caused some degree of harm to something else. Of course, most of our technology has caused a net benefit. If my opponent is believing that each creation has done a NET harm, then I ask them to offer any type of proof for such a bold statement. I believed both our sides can be summed up by my opponent's sentence, "The building will never be better shelter than the cave." Moving on to my opponent's next claim, we find "Their ability to understand the planet itself and live a somewhat harmonious existence, rarely abusing their surroundings. This is the application of intelligence." Let us address several major issues with this argument. First, no evidence is presented that any animal "understands the planet itself," making this an unsupported and false claim. Second, they claim that animals "rarely abuse their surroundings." This is completely false as nearly all animals survive by consuming other animals against their will. I'm sure if you ask the deer, they would say they are abused by the wolf that just killed them (that would be, if they could even comprehend what "abuse" is). Animals have no quorum with killing the children of other animals, commonly competitors (Lions will kill Cheetah babies as a hobby [2]). While some humans like to kill and eat animals, humans have at least taken the measure to attempt to make the killings as humane as possible. Animals do not typically engage in "humane" killings [3]. We can also see, that despite evolution making us into consumers (things that must eat other living things to survive), we are using our intelligence to try and break down that barrier as well. Gather energy direction for the sun and utilizing chemical reactions to make proteins and food (maybe some day, thanks to our intelligence). Thirdly, my opponent claims that this is an application of intelligence, when it is no such thing. It is merely them doing what their instincts tell them to do, and there just aren't any major consequences (though invasive species tend not to care about the harm they cause). My opponent's next argument is "It seems to me that plants have understood the true concept of individuality and separation for betterment of species(reason). This would prove an advanced intelligence deep rooted in to the soil and unwavering." Unfortunately, my opponent provides no evidence for this and actually provides evidence AGAINST it. Plants are individual (despite the fact that they are made of billions of cells that work TOGETHER to create a bigger better organism), but nothing shows that they have any understanding of that, and as my opponent points out, some trees can communicate. This communicating with other planets is directly against their "individuality and separation." My opponent then falsely claims that humans make decisions based on a single stimulus. We actually have our 5 senses (some have argued that we have more, but that is for a different debate) to gather different types of stimuli. Of course, other animals have just as many senses, if not more. Yet our brain is capable of collecting and remember these stimuli and applying logic to what we've learned to better understand the world. My opponent's next claim is "Plants are the most important thing on our planet, objectively. The prior statement is enough to prove superiority alone if left uncontested." I cannot stress enough how incorrect this is. First, plants are not important to the planet, but to the environment. Whether Earth is covered in life, or a barren wasteland (like all the other planets), Earth will not change. It will not disappear, or stop spinning, or fall into the sun or drift into space. It will continue with what it has been doing for billions of years. But the biggest issues with this is that this debate is about SPECIES, and plants are not a single species, they are a kingdom. While we could argue in a different debate about the significance of plants, there is no single plant that is more intelligent than humans. Let us now address the questions that my opponent asks. "Do you have anything other than technology and travel to prove man's superiority?" Nothing other than technology is needed. Technology is the application of intelligence. As we observe the world and take in knowledge, we use that knowledge to create things and develop skills. These things and skills, which are a direct result of intelligence, are our technology. My opponent can argue that it is evil all they want, but it is still a greater level of intelligence than anything that can be shown for any animal or plant. "Do you believe it is in humanities best interest to continue to create "things" and travel for leisure at the risk of our future and every other species on the planet?" Despite this being a suggestive question, I shall answer. No, it isn't in our best interest to do so, and thankfully, we don't. My opponent then requests that I ask questions. While I don't normally do this with debates, I will go ahead and do it for this debate. My opponent stated that "The building will never be better shelter than the cave." I must then ask, does my opponent live in a building or a cave? My opponent also stated, "The betterment of our species is merely a side effect [of technology] which barely occurs..." I must also ask if my opponent is debating on a piece of technology and if they believe that technology, which they voluntarily choose to use, is a net positive or net negative for our species? With that, I will pass this back to my opponent. Thank you [1] http://www.infoplease.com... [2] http://www.bluelion.org... [3] see video, http://www.youtube.com...