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

Pro Thinks its intelligent to destroy existence as we know it, in the name of curiosity and ability. I sincerely hope the voters don't feel the same. .. . RD 4 (RAN OUT OF ROOM)My opponent disputes my plant life theory. Say’s we have 5 senses, which is true - but does not relate to the actual brains processes. The brain has a single stimulus that bounces around between nerve endings and gives us reality as we see it. Essentially everything in the universe is electrical signals, and consciousness is not understood. The dream is the most amazing process we have and the brain activity does not explain how it exists, and it may never. Animals dream, what they dream of can only be speculated. “Prof. Quian Quiroga explains, “The human brain typically makes decisions based on a single stimulus, by evaluating the activity of a large number of neurons. I don’t get in front of a tiger 100 times to make an average of my neuronal responses and decide if I sho. .. ” . http://www.sciencedaily.com...RD 5 Thanks to Pro. This has slid horribly down hill. We have a problem with structure which began in RD 2 the very first round after the structure was stated when Pro decided to disregard the structure. If he wants to shift blame for that fine, that's what I get for making my weakness clear in RD 1. Furthermore, I am not going to engage in the definition game, especially after saying in the first round "I will not engage in semantics, as quibbling over minor issues will take away from the integrity of the discussion. " - nor will I make assertions without a citation, that's lazy and also a bare assertion fallacy. REBUTTALS Pro asked; ". .. does my opponent live in a building or a cave? "I am currently living in a bubble constructed of planet and life destroying chemicals suspended in virtual animation. Although it takes thumbs to build one they also come out of cows asses, but since man is doing what it shouldn't be able to do I guess its an intelligent creation. I guess you can say I Live in a self defeating shell of intelligence. Pro also asked;". .. 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? "I am far beyond Pros level of understanding. This question is either irrelevant or should work as more proof to my point. I guess this was meant to make me look bad. Here's to looking bad. .. Yes Pro, I am quite obviously using some sort of technology that operates over the Internet. This tech is over produced and will be incinerated in some trash center and release deadly gases into the atmosphere that will eventually kill man and put an end to mans "Intelligent" reign. As an afterthought -I have another confession- Animals, However humanely, were sliced up like something from a Friday the 13th sequel and placed on my plate for dinner less than an hour ago. But at least it was humane. I guess as long as its done in a factory and you feed the animal before you kill it, then it justifies the action and makes it humanely acceptable. My final rebuttal to these sarcastic questions and misleading statements from Pro;Pro stated; "It was clear from the OP that this debate would be about the intelligence of man vs other species. "I request that R1 is revisited Let me re-state the most important part of that statement since it was one of the first things I asked before anyone had even accepted this debate; "If Pro can prove that intelligence indeed exists in a form that is necessary to other living things, then" We never made it to a then. But since Pro is making this about winning and not about propagating let this be reason enough to vote CON. I also suggested that the "would be" debater - "Refer any questions to the comments and I can elaborate on my position if this is unclear in any way. "Pro ignored this CONCLUSION The Major Issue here isHuman Superiority. Our supposed intelligence has pushed more animals to extinction than any planetary change in history. We have affected nature negatively, which is something NO ANIMAL CAN CLAIM. Let me make this as clear as possible. Without life we aren't alive. You can't argue about who's smarter if you are extinct. I never agreed to Pros definition of intelligence - but I will further embrace it. Pro stated that he believes intelligence is simply the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and/or facts. I agree that man has acquired knowledge immensely and have refuted the application of it since my opening argument. These are the relevant facts as I see them (to avoid introducing any new arguments I will only bring up what I have mentioned in the prior rounds and reinforce them with more citations); Man’s obsession with living is destroying the earth. 1. Man’s technology causes harm to our environment. E. G. Space Travel is destroying the Ozone, Airplanes increase human death – Cited in Prior rounds… 2. In contrast animals do not damage the environment and whether their hunting practices are humane or not, they have not carried out acts of genocide or enslavement. I also don’t believe a predator eating the young of its prey can ever compare to so-called humane killing – which involves a life time of imprisonment in overcrowded facilities starvation and an archaic death to top it off. There is an entire documentary detailing the horrible lives of farm animals. Look on Google if you haven’t already, I assumed that it was common knowledge to “intelligent” man that life for our food is nothing to be applauded. We enslave our food for generations and kill them systematically pro’s logic disgusts me - . http://www.globalanimal.org... 3. Life expectancy is an average and Pro’s point is irrelevant. Take the oldest human, free from disease, and life length has not changed. I outlived the life expectancy for my hometown, but I will have to live another 80 years to reach 107 the age of my eldest family member. If life has anything to do with superiority then let me state that plants live longer lives without negative effect on the planet. Methuselah a bristlecone pine is 4,841 years old. The planet is necessary for us to have a debate Pro. Intelligence say’s keep it alive or you can’t win… . http://www.mnn.com... 4. Restating my ill-interpreted point from earlier; and without plants mankind will perish. Common knowledge. E. g. Oxygen need I say more. Of course the planet couldn’t careless, (of course that’s assuming that it isn’t conscious), But without plants nearly everything on the planet dies. Common knowledge. 5. There are places on our own planet that man has not and may not ever observe. Specifically, the bottom of the ocean. This is in direct refutation of Pro’s claim. A study by the NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) declares that 95% remains unseen by human eyes. Mount Everest also has a diverse habitat of animal life-. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... - . http://web.me.com... Man has ruined animal life’s natural migration patterns and caused extinction of several species as well as hibernation and breeding also mentioned in this article. . http://www.buzzle.com... Pro’s case begins and ends with technology. I can't find anything in pro's argument other than going to the moon to defend his claim of superiority. The culmination of intelligence for pro is, poking our head out of our bubble whilst destroying the very bubble that protects sustains our lives in doing so. The closest solar system would currently take us 43,000 years to travel to. We are stuck here, the intelligent thing to do is sit tight allow disease to kill the weak migrate and stop thinking were superior. The End.