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

Re Definition: This definition hinged on his case in R1. As you can see in his R1 points #2 and #6, PRO relied on presenting cat feats which were underdeveloped versions of feats which humans performed. Especially in point 6, the implication is clearly that cats are great because their similarities put them near the level of humans. PRO saw no way past my definitions, so he swapped modes w/ his argument. Re: Humans are bad: 1) No, PRO did not address this contention in point 3. Point 3 referred to technology not being allowed to be mentioned for physical feat comparison. In no way did it critique the fact that humans are the masters of knowledge/technology. Thus, PRO did drop my knowledge/technology argument. 2) A, B, C. A: Evidence for cannibal cats: . http://www.messybeast.com.... About cats eating other cats less than humans: PRO cites a few random numbers that concern human deaths, but this tactic is fallacious for two reasons: 1) The number of humans and the number of cats on the planet are far apart, thus comparison would have to rely on ratios (which PRO doesn't bring up). 2) The numbers are irrelevant. PRO was simply establishing that humans kill other humans. Me showing that cats kill other cats would negate this point. So PROs "even if CON is right . . . " deserves no more attention as that would be conceded to me. I'll address "Colonialism" in the comment section, as did PRO. As for no morals, make sure to look back at what PRO's quote said in R2. It stated that there was NO GOOD to come out of war. W/ everything comes goods and evils. I proved PRO's quote false by listing a good that came from war. As for overpopulation never becoming a problem, false: . http://en.wikipedia.org... (citations provided). B: PRO attempts to have me waste word quota in disproving a scientific idea that holds no real weight to this debate. Thus, I will focus on the point which I made. Since PRO concedes that it is not idea which is widely accepted, all I have to do is disprove his "majority" analogy. People believed ridiculous notions like the earth being flat due to religious biases. Heck, Galileo got arrested over by the Church over this. Today, the scientific community is more objective and scientifically secular, so they are certainly astronomically more credible than they were back then. Just because I agreed that humans have some blame for global warming, it doesn't mean you should buy into the slippery slope which PRO uses. He openly states that humans will inevitably destroy the planet, but provides no evidence to show that the current methods taken up by humans won't be enough to prevent GW from becoming catastrophic. That being the case, all I have to do now is provide evidence to show that major programs have been created to stop global warming. For my evidence which PRO asked me to present in R3, I'll use the Kyoto Protocol. Please take the time to observe this list of countries: . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Notice how a large majority of the countries have signed/accepted the KP. w/ this noted, the majority of the planet has declared its efforts to combat global warming. Countries which oppose the KP are in the minority, so PRO's mentioning of merely ONE works against him in this debate. Also, this piece of evidence lists major programs which both the US and Canada have:: . http://www.ene.gov.on.ca... As for proving whether or not these programs can stop millions of species from dying, the burden of proof rests on PRO since he initiated this point in the first place. Cats not having caused Global Warming: This goes back to R2 point. GW was inadvertently caused due to humans wishing to make life better for other humans. But cats? They have no interest in providing a better life for their species and are only concerned w/ their individual desires. This is why humans are able to remain as #1. C: Whether or not one can say that it's blamable for man is subjective and irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I've shown that cats also torture. This was an idea which PRO was against in R2. All he manages to do here is change his argument to cover this fact. Please remember that I also insisted that all cats were prone to cruelty due to indifference during killing. PRO drops this point in R3, so extend it to this one. The unmoral argument here is new, but works in my favor. Since when have cats possessed morals? If cats are amoral as well, this argument has no impact on this debate. 6 POINTS: 1) A: Me saying that dependence was not a bad thing is clarification on the fact that I didn't say it was a bad thing during R1 either. B: The same thing being said about cats hinders PRO's case as he originally declared that all cats as independent. C: As you can see in my R1, I said that humans were both dependent and independent. My argument was that cats merely possess one quality or the other, thus making them inferior when it comes to benefits of these two qualities. Thus, there is no contradiction. PRO saying that cats could survive w/o the help from humans doesn't negate my point that cats put their survival in human hands. As shown, what makes cats relying on humans different than humans relying on humans is the fact that cats are completely submitting to a species which PRO suggests is inferior. 2) A: We observe evolution taking course due to the fact that we're observing PAST elements. What PRO is insisting is that we are observing the future, which is no more than science fiction. B: The resolution states "Are the greatest", thus proof that the future does not weigh on this debate. C: PRO ignores my claim that this argument is baseless conjecture and presents no evidence to suggest that cats will become smarter than humans. D: PRO drops his argument on the many skills of cats. 3) A: PRO drops his "lion/megaphone" argument. B: PRO says that usage is not human, but I believe I sufficiently answered this in R2. Since greatness is determined by the species themselves , humans being able to outdo cats on all of their feats through applying their brains rather than their brawn would make them greater than cats. This is what I meant by suggesting that whatever the humans create is to be considered a part of them. C: PRO is telling you to dismiss his second contention since he believes that intelligence is immeasurable. Dismiss this because PRO never bothers proving how intelligence is immeasurable when comparing cats and humans. 4) A: PRO is attempting to change his argument as he never argued anything about representation of the population in R2. B: He didn't address my claim that he was referring to ALL cats when he made his cuteness argument, yet another reason as to why my R2 response is warranted. C: The lighting on Cat "A" was not what I was referring to, so this is red herring argument. D: I don't have to prove that humans prefer patterns to blotches as this is a strawman crafted by PRO. I said that humans prefer ARTISTIC symmetry to RANDOM blotches. E: PRO ignores my criticisms on the other two cats and simply repeats himself in saying that they are beautiful. Human babies: Crying is easy to solve and doesn't compare to getting scratched and getting a disease. And there's nothing to stop one from snuggling w/ another human for their entire life time ( I had mentioned adults too). Cats fur may be soft, but shedding is detrimental. Also, PRO states that it's just what you need when you're trying to lay down, but this is unsound; the average cat is far smaller than the average human. PRO drops his "sex drive" point, so pull that to R3. 5) PRO did not object to my claim that humans have ultimate authority on comedy, thus I win this point. And even if the situation were as he described, he'd lose this point as the burden of proof belongs to him. 6) See "Definition. " for R3.