Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

Introduction Thank you for your response. I will now get into my arguments. The Determination of Superiority/Inferiority In order to determine superiority/inferiority, it is necessary that object, action, and condition are taken into account. Without the object there exists nothing to be compared. Without the action, there exists no means of comparing. Without condition there exists no determination of the action. Object - That which is acting Act - Means of comparison Condition - Comparison Example Object = Two Cats Action = Running a Race Condition = Whoever is Faster is Superior Cat A and Cat B run a race. Cat A was faster than cat B. Therefore Cat A was superior to cat B. Without Object: Run a race. Faster. Superior. (there is no object to apply these notions to) Without Action: Two Cats. One cat is superior. Without Condition: Two cats. Whoever runs faster is superior. - When any one of these is missing the determination of superiority/inferiority is rendered impossible. Now my opponent is arguing that I must argue that differing objects in of themselves are superior to other objects. However, this notion is absurd, for the determination of superiority/inferiority is not possible without act or condition. Implication of the Resolution This debate is not over the determination of superiority/inferiority, but rather on whether the determination of superiority/inferiority is objective or subjective. This implies that there is a set way on determining superiority/inferiority. Since it is logically sound that the determination of superiority/inferiority is determined by object, act, and condition, and the lack of any of the requisites creates a failure to properly determine superiority/inferiority, it is to therefore be concluded that the resolution implies the use of object, act, and condition when determining superiority/inferiority. My opponent’s notion that I must argue for superiority/inferiority by object alone is first off, impossible, and second, it goes against the implications of the resolution. Now the words “to something” as stated in the resolution seem not to imply that superiority/inferiority is determined by object alone (since such a notion is absurd), but rather it applies to the conclusion of object, act, and condition. For example, I used object, act, and condition to determine that humans were superior to cats at building skyscrapers. It is in this sense that humans are superior to cats. Objective Determination of Superiority/Inferiority In order to win I must show humans to be objectively superior/inferior to something. I did this last round with the syllogism I created in which I argued that humans are objectively superior than cats at building skyscrapers. It is in this particular sense that humans are objectively superior to cats. My opponent states that in order to win I must prove that “objects themselves are objectively different in value because of their differing traits.” This is simply false. I don’t need to show that any given thing has an objective value, but only that it is superior. Value and superiority aren’t necessarily connected to each other, and my opponent has yet to show they do. My argument that humans are superior to cats does not imply that humans are more valuable than cats; they are two different things. Now perhaps value is connected with superiority when we do not consider act or condition, but since I showed that act and condition are necessary for the determination of superiority, it therefore does not follow that value and superiority are connected. Conclusion Over to you.