Humans are right to be considered animals.

I simply chose that particular website as source because of the easily understandable presentation. If the taxonomy of humans is in question because of this, I could have sited any biology textbook that came to mind. The taxonomy of humans has been peer reviewed extensively and verified according to our scientific understanding to this date. "Third, it's downright absurd - do you bring sick people to an animal hospital? Does the RSPCA sell humans as pets?" No. I think my opponent misunderstands my position. I do not think Humans are equal to other animals and I do not believe that they deserve the same rights within our society. "My opponent needs to defend his wacky definition of animal, which clearly is not our common usage of the word." An animal is a biological term, which is defined as a member of the animalia kingdom. Whether the common usage of the word is exactly that has no bearing on the argument. People generally use ‘animal' to describe those lower on the evolutionary chain with lower cognitive ability. I can imagine why; every other creature in animalia has lower cognitive ability. However, just because people use the word like that in everyday language, does not mean that is what the word means. I know my opponent does not want this to come back to definitions, but it has to. "Why do they believe this? It is a great misconception that just because we evolved from animals, we must be an animal." We evolved from single celled organisms too, and I am not arguing that we are bacteria. We are animals because we meet every criteria from a system which we categorise every other living thing with in order to be called an animal. "We might even share the characteristics of an animal, just like animals share many characteristics with plants (both have DNA etc)." The differences between plants and animals outweigh the similarities. This is obvious, just like how the similarities between animals and humans biologically, staggeringly outweigh the differences. "Consider humans as opposed to other members of the primate's order." Chimpanzees are our closest relatives that are branded as animals socially and biologically, and we have to look at why they are considered animals in con's opinion and we are not. "Humans, the only members of the homo genus, have a number of characteristics that simply do not fit with all the others. They live in many more conditions. Their brains are nearly three times the size of the next-closest primate brain (http://en.wikipedia.org......). 80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different (http://www.whyevolution.com......). Humans are the only creatures within this or any other order that appears to exhibit metaphysical, aesthetic or moral awareness. The anatomical differences are too numerous to mention. There are real differences between humans and every other animal." First: ‘aesthetic awareness' with aesthetic being defined as ‘concerning or characterized by an appreciation of beauty or good taste': All animals choose mates, and within a certain species there are certain characteristics that are preferable for reproduction. You could call this beauty could you not? (Definition of beauty: the qualities that give pleasure to the senses wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). Animals are aesthetically aware in order to choose the best mate and reproduce successfully. Second: ‘moral awareness'. The following link is a newspaper article explaining just one scientist's work observing moral behaviour in primates. http://www.nytimes.com.... Many scientists believe that morality is not a human trait and it was evolved to ensure social harmony, so naturally it would be observed in other animals. (http://www.independent.co.uk...). "The question is now whether these kinds of differences are enough to exclude humans from the primates order." Yes, there are some biological differences between humans and our closest living primates. However, there are a huge number of differences between those primates and, say, an earthworm. Yet both these creatures are both socially (and biologically) considered as animals. So how can something as so biologically different to a primate as an earthworm be considered an animal, but something as so relatively similar as humans be excluded? "Sheer range of additional characteristics, especially the anatomical and cognitive differences." Any anatomical differences are minute compared to that of animals lower in the evolutionary chain, as stated before, and the only cognitive difference is an increased ability. "Create a new order within animal, just for humans, or create a new kingdom for humans." The first option would still class humans as animalia. A new kingdom would only be created if humans show as many differences to other animals as with plants, bacteria ect, "First, it has dangerous philosophical ramifications." I do not believe that philosophical ramifications have a bearing in the debate. Hypothetically, if Humans are shown undisputedly to be animals but some people may skew that fact into their own philosophy, should it be discounted? "If humans are to view each other as animals it would be accepting cannibalism, it would be counter to every form of religion and normative ethical framework." How would it accept cannibalism? If we are biologically animals it does not change our social taboos. If we accept ourselves as animals, that does not mean that we have to act the same as evolutionarily lower animals. We are our own species with social pressures and taboos put in place to ensure evolutionary success. Whether it is counter to religion or ethical framework is not an issue here. "Hitler and Stalin, with their doctrines that people are there to be manipulated like cattle." I do not see how this is relevant. These people's views on humanity does not have a bearing on whether we are actually animals or not. "Second it implies animals can claim equal rights and responsibilities to humans." No it does not. Just as just because cockroaches and cats are both animals, we do not give them both the same rights. Killing a cockroach has no ramifications, but killing a cat is animal cruelty. Humans are animals, but we are also evolutionarily superior which gives us the right to assign ourselves higher rights within our society. "Third it's an insult to the scientific establishment that has made us distinct from animals through technology and research. What use are our arts and music if we are only "animals"? What use is this debating website?" This is an absurd argument. Our higher cognitive ability (a characteristic of our species) allows us to create and enjoy art and music and to design new technology. The question here is whether that cognitive ability warrants us a separate kingdom. Through my opponents arguments I conclude that they consist of: 1)Biological differences between humans and other animals. (They do not come close to the differences between creatures of other kingdoms) 2)Social differences between humans and other animals. (Higher cognitive ability leading to more copmplex social structure does not warrant a different kingdom.) 3)Philosophical ramifications. (Irrelevant on whether we are actually animals or not.) My opponent fears that if we are considered animals we suddenly lose all purpose in life and are as socially aware as other animals. We are animals, but we are also humans: a species that is cognitively superior and socially complex. Personally I think that the main reason for people not wanting to be called animals is because they think it lowers their status as a living being. It doesn't. You are an animal first, then a vertebrate, then a mammal, then a primate, then a hominid, and then our own species, homo sapien, encompassing all our complex and distinguishifrom other animals in shown by our own species, but overall, we are still animals.