Humans are right to be considered animals.

My opponent still fails to provide any rational for her model. For this last round I'll rebut her rebuttal, defending my case, and sum everything up. I'll use the same order as my opponent, for clarity. 0) Definitions ): My opponent admits he is using a highly specialized form of the word "animal" that people dismiss "everyday. " I encourage voters to dismiss it today with their votes. 1) Biological Here my opponent admits the differences, but claims they are trivial. Three responses. First, a 2-celled organism may be exceedingly similar to a bacteria, but we don't class it as such because of a trivial difference. It was a trivial difference that initially separated plants and fungi. Second, they are not trivial. I think my opponent would be hard pressed to find many animals that do not fall between an earthworm and a chimpanzee in DNA structure. Humans do not only fail to fall within this range, they are beyond it by a wide margin. As mentioned we are as far from a chimp as a chimp is from an earthworm, and my opponent fails to respond to this point. Third, my opponent cannot admit a cognitive difference and claim biological differences are trivial. The two are inherently linked. Our DNA gives us our brain. The overall point is that there are more differences between me and a chimpanzee, than there are between a one celled and a two celled creature. 2) Social I did not actually make any strictly social points. Nonetheless, my opponent admits differences ("I do not think Humans are equal to other animals. .. "), but has a few similarities to offer. First she rants on about "aesthetics" - apparently you cannot love and not have an appreciation of beauty. First subpoint, again, this is an assertion by my opponent. No source is provided. Second subpoint, within human culture, the sense of aesthetics is far more refined even if what you're saying is true. I'd like to cite the lack of any Picasso, Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc among any animals ever. Second, my opponent claims moral awareness in animals. There are two problems with this. First, morality is not a set of behaviors, as was observed at the zoo cited by my opponent. It is more than that. It is the actual evaluation of these actions (see . http://blogs.reuters.com...). Second, the morality exhibited by the primates in the park is, according to the article, of a much "lower level," indicating that any animal morality may be nothing more than bias - that is, by looking for morality you might find some simple features of it even if morality does not exist. Later, my opponent claims animals are not equal legally. This is true. The law is practically divided into law for humans (if they are animals, which legally they are not), farm animals, pets and other animals. The law for humans is, however, the odd one out. Humans have such a wide range of differing rights and responsibilities that to not give like creatures similar rights would be irresponsible. Are humans like animals? The legal view is no. 3) Philosophical My opponent misunderstands my use of philosophical argument. It's not to differentiate humans and animals, it is that since humans are in the wrong order, should they change order or kingdom? Philosophical frameworks can help us make that judgment, so to state they have no bearing on the debate is an unjustified assertion. Religion can help us make that judgment, as can ethics. One does not dismiss their wisdom by ignoring it, rather by refuting it, which my opponent fails to do. The fact most people eat animals, and that this is a social norm, can help us make that judgment. History can help us make that judgment. My opponent cannot simply dismiss the fact that all of the above give us good reason to shift to another kingdom (it's just an arbitrary bound after all). Now to conclude, what has this debate been about. My opponent attempted two things - first a win by definition, then a win by appeal to authority. Neither of these are good grounds for the moot "Humans are right to be considered animals," so any additional argumentation by me was simply out of the goodness of my heart, to keep the debate interesting. In round two I took you on a bit of a journey, on why I don't believe the classification of humans is right. My opponent attempted some simple rebuttals at this which I have dealt with above. So I have this case, take it or leave it. Whether or not you do, pro has failed to provide any convincing evidence, and has thus lost our little quarrel. Please, please, please vote for the side that has given you logical arguments, sound reasoning within those arguments and has not attempted to resort to cheap tricks in order to try to win this debate. Personally I would have found these things self-evident - one might even say, common sense. Apparently not.