Humans should be made into Autotrophs

I enjoyed my opponents well thought and formulate fallacious arguments! But I refuse to consider them and think he should bow down to me."Since my opponent said misquoting is not allowed and the only type of quoting I know how to do is misquoting, I will not be able to quote my opponent. My opponent wrote a bunch of fancy stuff about humans that I didn't even read because it was boring. However, I'm still sure my opponent is wrong. If a Homo Erectus walked up to you, would you call it human? No, you wouldn't (I can read minds). Therefore, my opponent is wrong. Although I'm making a dubious claim here, I'm sure it wouldn't feel good to be an inferior species. The regular old Homo Sapiens would not have a good time being inferior. Trust me, I am an Inferiorologist. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE INFERIOR?" I must admit, you may be correct, but I probably would call a Homo Erectus a human, especially now that I have considered the broader definition of the word. Also, I'm sorry about my boring talk, it is just my agenda to make them more boring to make reading unfun.As for humans being inferior...I did say homo sapiens would mayhaps be seen as inferior by the new humans (or whatever).But that would only be the new humans perspective, and that's because we humans already have this mindset.We think our species is superior to others, its not necessarily true. And humans already see other humans as inferior because of multiple reasons, like disabilities, age, and sex. You can't explain that. (well maybe you can)So the homo sapiens would not be inferior, because inferior is not objective."I'm probably not supposed to misquote myself either, but that's a risk I'm more willing to take."Okay, well you can't misquote yourself either, but I will ignore it and leave it for the voters to decide."This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Not killing other organisms being beneficial is my opponent's opinion. No proof was provided for my opponent's stance."Sure,That might just be appeal to hypocrisy, you got me. ://I can counter this, but I refuse to from my extreme apathy.My opponent goes to say some things that I do not want to quote but involves my most hated and loved movie: Ice Age.My opponent is right, I am so bemused that I am not able to respond.However I will reference my opponents arguments!You know what, I think the 'human' autotrophs would be able to photosynthesize not just CO2. I have a strange feeling my opponent might assume that CO2 is the only chemical they will have to live off, if they even were to have it in their diet.Since these new humans would produce CO2 through respiration like humans do now, I don't see why they would eat it, and if they did, they can just make what they eat. CO2 problem solved.I also have a strange sudden urge to say something out of the blue for no reason whatsoever:In case you were wondering, the new species of autotrophs could not easily make its new food supply depleted.There are three points to this:1. That's not how things work, chemicals aren't just gone when photosynthesized. Inorganic substances like CO2 are produced and recycled by many organism. Many forms of life would have to be eliminated in order to cause, Bobo forbid, a depletion of a food source already many organism on all levels use to subsist. The new humans would also be able to use other organism to make inorganic substances if necessary anyway.2. Autotrophic human thingys would be able to store carbohydrates in their cells and other kewl stuff man, they could produce usable energy for themselves. Therefore therefore. Compared to all the autotrophs, the additional ones could not use more than them.3. Autotrophs love us, they are all around us and enjoy us producing resources for them. If someone thinks all autotrophs have a bond of some sort (who would even say that) they should explain why so many autotrophs compete, starve, and are enemies to each other without humans.4. The new autotrophic humans could go to mars and Venus to eat the CO2 there if necessary.Finally: I forget..."Cooking already is a form of art, and eating already is for pleasure and nutrients. I think the burden is on my opponent to prove this is not already so, seeing as my opponent asserted this first."I never said it was not already, I just said it would solely be for those purposes rather than for energy."From my opponent's own source "It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way... Our digestive tract just chews all that stuff up - the chloroplasts and the DNA". The only conclusion I can draw from this is that my opponent is a treacherous slug attempting to undermine humanity by trying to convince us to become autotrophs when we cannot. A vote for Con is a vote for humans."My opponent underestimates the level of my arrogance.I am a slug! But I want to make humans jealous, rather than convince them to become autotrophs. There no fun including them.My sources:"It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way"Not the same way I be talking about. Also, I just put that source there because I am pompous, but it also shows that an animal can be/become autotrophic and still subsist. Argument for no reason: My opponent is obviously a homo sapien that hates sentient autotrophic slugs and probably eats them too... That's unethical and gross.This is because my opponent does not realize that if humans have the technology to put plastids in human cells and use genetic engineering techniques, we could make a human autotroph species out of ourselves. My argument is "Humans should be made into Autotrophs"."I assert my opponent's last line is fabrication. I am certain that my opponent bites, and I challenge it to prove otherwise."But I don't have teeth, I'm a slug that lives off of chloroplast and plant matter. Well there was this one time I nibbled on candy corn, but nibbling is not biting!How can my opponent possibly be such a scallywag as to make a total floccinaucinihilipilification of my catawampus statements!Vote Pro if you think pooping is gross and want to be a superheroine!A vote for pro is a vote for prosperity. I crest my case.