(Tourney #22) Cats are the greatest animal known to man.

Time for round 2. Re Definition: PRO begins his round by conceding to my refutation of his own definition of animals. Keep in mind that he was urging the exact opposite in the previous round. Re "Humans are bad: 1) Contrary to what PRO stated he would do at the beginning of the previous round, he did not address my argument which concerned the greatness of humanity. Rather than actually responding to my argument on human knowledge/technology, he pursues a different argument that concerns the "evil" of human kind. Since PRO has dropped the argument which I presented without any warrant whatsoever, you're free to extend it to this round. 2) I will label the 3 arguments on this point as a, b, and c. a) Humans may kill other humans, but cats (or most other species) are no different in this department. Cats have been known to devour their own offspring as well as devour other cats. Contrary to homo sapiens, cannibalism is quite common for cats to endorse. As for humans being cruel to cats, keep in mind that PRO was the one to brag about tigers having killed many humans. As for war, it can serve many purposes. Looking at war from a logical perspective, this is the chance for nations to increase their own resources through conquering and plundering other nations. To add more fuel to the fire, war is efficient in that it decreases the human population. Since humans are at the top of the food chain, it would only be detrimental not to have a means of keeping our population balanced. b) The link which PRO provides you with is not credible. This is due to the fact that none of this information has been favored and supported by majority in peer reviewed journals. Most scientist conclude that global warming will actually bring about the next ice age. Detonation of the earth is not expressed as a conclusion by the majority. There is a reason the author of that page tells you to forward this info to other scientist and that is because this information has NOT received majority support via peer review. Furthermore, the effects of global warming are not intentional on humanity's part. Its effects are an unintended consequence of our attempt to make life better for everyone. Not to mention that PRO leaves out the fact that not only can global warming be prevented by our technology, but that many are currently working towards preventing it. Contrary to animals, we try to clean up after ourselves. c) Definition: Cruel: 1. Of persons (also transf. and fig. of things): Disposed to inflict suffering; indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress; destitute of kindness or compassion; merciless, pitiless, hard-hearted - Oxford English Dictionary. With that being noted, cats are indifferent to ending their preys' lives all the time; they will kill their prey without hesitation, regardless of the circumstances.Furthermore, domestic cats take great pleasure in torturing their prey: http://books.google.com... oC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=cats+torture+their+prey&source=web&ots=_rEPP5cInh&sig=KIAgVwgb9GKIWoH3qOtqkfCf9Ik&hl=en They will catch mice without actually being hungry and torture them out of mere amusement. In terms of the cruelty department, humans differ in that many are inclined to uphold morals before causing someone or something else to suffer without so much as a guilty conscience Re Six Points: 1) First, it must be pointed out that dependence is not a bad thing. Working together rather than working apart makes the stability of homo sapiens more likely. Second, PRO introduced a straw man argument just now as I never said anything about humans being more independent than cats; I said humans possess both qualities. Dismiss this rebuttal. As for domestic cats relying on humans, PROt misunderstands the intention of this argument. The fact of the matter is that cats rely on HUMANS. As the greater animal, you'd think they'd be able have more control over their lives. Furthermore, you'd think these cats would put their efforts into escaping their human masters for the sake of their independence. But what do they do? They stay in their human homes, sleep most of the day, and eat tuna. So much so, that this has even become something for us humans to poke fun at: http://www.oook.cz... 2) This point has no relevance. First, this is conjecture on the PRO's part. As far as he knows, cats will be extinct before they have such an opportunity to evolve the level he refers to. Second, we're discussing the present; we're discussing what is observable. Right now, humans dominate cats when it comes to intellect. As for the skills which PRO brought up, even if we were to conclude that humans were equal to cats on that limited list he provided, this would do nothing for PRO's case; at best, this is just him confessing that he brought up a point which did nothing to show that cats are the greatest of animals. 3) Humans CREATED the technology, so technology is thus considered an extension of the human; technology comes from humans themselves, therefore citing it is valid in a debate such as this. Furthermore, how would a lion gain access to a megaphone, much less figure out how to use one? And if a lion were to use a megaphone, it would be using a MAN MADE invention, hence the credit for such a feat would go to humans. All this point manages to do is hurt PRO's case. 4) First, it must be noted that PRO concedes to those pictures of cats not looking cute. If I counter his lighting/bad position argument, this point will be mine. The ugliness in the first picture comes from the color of the cats fur. As you'll note, there is no pattern. It's basically random blotches of black, brown, and beige. We humans prefer there to be some artistic symmetry in what we consider cute. Lighting/position could do nothing to change that. As for third picture, you'll notice that there is no lighting whatsoever. Furthermore, it's the cats fur that attributes to its ugliness. Finally, PRO's counter against this is baseless conjecture at best. The wrinkles and the poor diet is what make that cat look ugly. Both factors are indeed possible. The PRO attempts to discredit the picture by comparing it to a picture which obviously has an adult male's face photoshopped onto an infant, but sadly, our pictures simply don't compare. Secondly, I beg to differ with PRO. Observe the following photo with a father and daughter: http://rowena.typepad.com... One doesn't need to snuggle with the baby as the baby can accomplish acts of snuggling on his/her own. Thus, there is an unintended advantage here as you likely wouldn't have to put any work into acts of snuggling (considering that you'd be snuggled instead). On the other hand, a cat is likely to scratch when snuggled. Not to mention that cats have a higher chance of spreading a disease (via scratching) than human babies do. Furthermore, this warm fur from cats is hardly substantial, not to mention that cars often shed their fur when their masters come into such contact with them. Furthermore, what PRO says is false as we are not attracted to ALL females (or males, depending on sexuality). Not to mention that since PRO conceded to human's having the ultimate authority on cuteness, this isn't even an issue. 5) No they wouldn't, but as insinuated in the previous round, the main source of comedy isn't provided by lolcats, thus the loss of lolcats wouldn't even be an issue. In fact, we'd probably have lolllamas instead. Even though I don't have to address the links, I can't help but point out that PRO's second link had nothing to do with cats. 6) The argument introduced in round 1 implied that animals (specifically cats) are inferior to humans, hence being one of the main reasons you should vote against PRO. Not only that, but these traits which PRO insinuates are all traits which humans have superior forms of I now await PROs final rebuttal.