Cats can be taught spiritual truths

Still I have to correct my opponent in a few points: As he hasn't provided any definition for "spiritual truth" nor logically outlined how only one of his Positions actually proves that cats are these "spiritual truths". Therefore major parts of this whole concept are already flawed here. With the lack of any proper logical connection of any of these three positions to the actual resolution - not one of the given arguments logically holds so far. Not to start on the BOP for affirmative assumptions such as this is. As my opponent has also, surely accidental forgotten to provide scientific evidence, I'll keep my rebuttal short and mostly evidence-free, assuming that the first round was probably meant as a presentation of key ideas. 1. Cats are unable to understand higher concepts such as religion or spirituality, as they even lack simple signs of higher intelligence such as the ability to make and use tools to their benefit. 2. The mere ability to hear doesn't equal the ability to understand and process the information in complex and reflective ways. Assuming that conditioned behaviour to a very simple sound-structure is the same as understanding complex language and sentence structures is purely affirmative and also logically insufficient. 3-1 If cats were naturally spiritual truths than they cannot be more spiritually developed. If you are already perfect you can't be more perfect. Therefore cats can a) not spiritually develop further and b) change their behaviour and fur shedding without creating a paradox with the resolution. In the logic of an indirect prove: if Position 3-1 is correct the resolution can't be logically true or if the resolution is true, Position 3-1 can't be true. As Pro assumes that 3-1 is prove for his resolution, he assumes that 3-1 is true, therefore proving that his resolution cannot be true. 3-2 a. "Most religions teach that we reincarnate" is an assumption - most major religions do NOT believe in reincarnation such as most forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and even some forms of Buddhism don't believe in it {1} b. Nor do most of them clearly teach that animals will be brought to heaven (it's often a question of interpretation {2} ) and c. Cats do not at all do all the things "we" (humans? ) do. Just to give a few examples, cats do not: - create art - create tools - have pets - cook or combine their food to make it more delicious - have strong family bonds that hold over many generations Having shown that all three basic assumptions of 3-2 are either wrong, most likely wrong or seriously wrong; I may also say that even IF animals WOULD certainly go to heaven than we still don't have the the knowledge whether this will happen only if they are/become/learn spiritual truths. Because frankly Cats would require free will, which, from for instance Christian views has only been given to humans (Genesis). {1} . http://www.comparativereligion.com... Parts A to D {2} . http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com... With all my love for cats and their entertainingly limited intelligence this whole resolution is flawed from one end to the other without evidence or definitions of keywords. Pro may or may not invent more creative (and unsourced) positions about cat-abilities; they will not become truths or proof for anything just because Pro claims so. Still I did enjoy to think about why the given positions are not only useless from the technical side of debating but also logically.