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

First CON's statement about the definition: A definition is COMPLETELY not a voter, as CON states it is. I simply realized that humans to fall under the umbrella of an animal, but that in no way is abusive to CON and does not contradict my case. The second observation is blatantly wrong. I CLEARLY responded to the technology argument under point three. Also, I created offensive points on why humans are the worst animal, trumping his arguments. With that said, let's look at the arguments made in CON's last round: A.Killing. CON states that cats are cannibals. I urge him to prove to you with evidence that this is true. Moreover, even if some cats do, it is WAY less than humans. According to the FBI, there were 16,137 murders in the United States alone, NOT counting accidents, suicides, and ‘necessary' murders. Also, take the War in Iraq for example. US soldiers have killed around 50,000 Iraqi civilians. This is unjustifiable. US was trying to find nuclear weapons to protect ourselves, and have destroyed a whole country in the process. THAT'S why war can not be had in our world. Plus, the Iraq War is miniscule to other wars. Take WWII, where a SINGLE MAN ordered 11 million ‘lesser people' to be killed. The total cost of life in about 5 years was 72,707,700. Humanity has failed itself. My opponent suggests that colonialism is good. Inevitably, this statement is wrong. VICTIM NATIONS OF COLONIALISM ARE INFINITELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO CIVIL\INTERNATIONAL WARS, INSECURITY AND GANGSTERS. (see comments) He also suggests that killing is good because it controls the population. This statement is not only wrong but unmoralistic. What has humanity become that we must justify killing to better and prolong our lives? We can not even be certain that overpopulation will ever become a problem. All in all, humans have destroyed themselves and their morals through killing, while cats have not. B.Global Warming. My opponent suggests that my earth explosion argument is not credible. But, here's is another credible source that says the earth can explode (http://nujournal.net...). This is a credible source, as it comes from a PhD mathematician, even if it comes from a journal. Plus, just because it is not widely acceptable does not mean it is not correct. The majority of people thought the earth was flat, but that was later disproven. Fact is, this is backed by scientific evidence and mathematics. I challenge my opponent to disprove this with scientific reason. He also goes on to say that Global Warming will cause an Ice Age. But still, that COULD STILL LEAD TO HUMAN EXTINCTION. Whatever the impact, global warming could lead to more than 1 million species extinction in the short term. (http://www.nrdc.org...) and (http://www.newscientist.com...) My opponent then concedes that GW is caused by humans, and says that it was unintentional. This clinches MY WIN ON THIS ARGUMENT; he concedes that humans have caused GW while cats have not. Furthermore, whether or not humans tried to cause this, THEY STILL DID! They will inevitably destroy the planet and millions of species along with it. The last argument is that humans can fix global warming. I challenge my opponent to prove that we can stop these millions of species from dying. There have been no major programs to date to stop global warming, and it seems the government does not care about stopping global warming, as we can see from the US not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. I guess we will be addicted forever. C.Cruelness. My opponent's argument here is that cats torture too. I urge you to actually read this book. It says, "Such habits can not be considered blamable except in the case of man- the most viscously and knowingly cruel of living creatures." This only proves my case. This is also abusive because he is not saying what the article says. That leads me to the conclusion even if cats do this, IT DOESN'T COMPARE TO WHAT HUMANS DO! Humans have always thought of themselves as an elite race. Multiple animals have been sacrificial since the beginning of time. Even the CON's arguments are re-enforcing this vicious discourse. Take these (http://stupid-ideas.blogspot.com...), (http://www.endanimalcruelty.com...), and (http://www.rescuetheanimals.org...). Just look at dog fighting, where a dog is killed if he loses a fight. Humans are unmoralistic and cruel because of this. WAY worse than killing a mouse. You must vote PRO on these arguments. The facts are there, and you must avoid the elitism that Logical creates. Now onto the six main contentions: 1) First, my opponent says that dependence is not a bad thing. Neglecting the fact that this argument is new, the same thing can be said about cats. Moreover, CON contradicts himself in saying that cats are dependent and dependence is good. Neglecting THAT, he says that cats rely on humans. But, as I have proven, this is not always true. I stated that if cats were never brought in by humans, they could survive. The dependent ones were brought into the home by humans, and have had everything supplied for them, hence they get dependent. 2) My opponent argues that we can only look at what is observable. But, we can observe that evolution is taking its course. Granted, humans are smarter, and are more highly developed, but CON never argues that humans are evolving. So, from what we can observe from the evolution of cats, it can reasonably be concluded that cats could be as smart as humans one day. That IS drawing conclusive evidence from something we can observe, and is COMPLETELY a reason why cats are superior than humans. 3) This argument is completely favored in my side. He argues that technology is ‘part of the human' but that is simply not the case. Although humans created the technology and that may be a feat, using it is NOT THE HUMAN. In the case of cats, the fact that they can run faster and jumper higher than any human with Converses simply PROVES that cats are in fact the greatest animal there is. This argument can also moot out the fact that humans are smarter, as both abilities are amazing, but intelligence is unquantifiable. 4) First, even if these three cats are ugly, that does not represent the entire population of cats. Second, as I have stated ‘A' Cat is in bad lighting, as you can see its eyes are facing a light. Furthermore, I urge my opponent to prove that humans like patterns more than blotches. The second cat obviously is doctored and screaming or something. The final cat is yawning, but has beautiful fur. This proves that cats are beautiful; as these 3 are the ugliest CON could come up with. Now look at these beautiful ones: (http://puppycatragdolls.com...) (http://imeleon.com...) (http://www.for-the-love-of-cats.com...) As for the human baby, while you can sit with them for a little while, they will inevitably start crying and they need to go in their crib. Not to mention, you can only snuggle with a child for a few years, while cats can be a companion for the cat's lifetime. y opponent suggests that the fur is not substantial and states that cars shed their fur. First, cat's fur is warm and soft, just what you're looking for when you want to lay down. Secondly, the claim about cars is irrelevant. 5) This is a wash. I have said the comedy comes from the cats, he has said it comes from the humans. Inevitably, neither of us gain an advantage, so at this point you can not weigh this. 6) This argument does not matter because I was trying to prove cats are more like us than any other animal, and CON decided to say that we are better. Thus, this argument is moot because it proves nothing for either case