Humans are not different from animals.

Sorry for my belated reply, I had a law exam a few hours ago. Responses to arguments: 1. Our ability to feel emotion is linked to our cognitive ability (which in humans, by the way, is far superior than in animals). But the source of our emotions is instinct, for instance, the emotion of fear is based on the instinct of self-preservation. This is not exclusive to animals, however. Bacteria that do reproduce sexually do feel love insofar as their cognitive ability allows. My opponent accepts that emotions are impossible to measure, for instance by his challenge to me, so logically he must accept my conclusion that they are not a good qualifier for what makes an animal or human. 2. My opponent believes that evolving is a technological development. Technically it isn't, because evolution is random and not designed (or at least, that is the scientific consensus, we won't go into the religious case here!) - but even if it was, it's not something that the animals achieved. It's something nature achieved. Animals do not produce independent technology and thus should still be differentiated. 3. In response to my point about ethics and justice, my opponent's response has been the denial of moral relativism. Firstly, I think that's a little beside the point. But I'll pretend, for the sake of debate, that it actually deals with my argument. Two responses. The first is that moral relativism is widely accepted. I'm sorry, I've got all this law stuck in my head so I can only name a few court cases, not real world examples: the People v Fumiko Kimura, People v Chen, People v Moua are some examples of US cases I can think of, plus lots of British, Australian and New Zealand ones (if you really want me to I might list a few in a comment). Second, moral relativism comes logically from ethics. It's in one of Aristotle's books on ethics somewhere. On a lighter note, just because my opponent wants to be an animal doesn't make him one, unlike what his last sentence on this point suggests. I for one DON'T want to be considered an animal by my peers. I'll leave the final judgment to the voters. 4. Apparently overpopulation is caused by a lack of intelligence and morality. Now, I have an IQ of ~120, which means ~90.9% of the population are stupider than me (for the record, I know IQ tests are flawed, but they are the best we have for measuring intelligence). I'm also very well read in philosophical literature. Yet I am not rebelling against the governments you mentioned! Neither are my friends, many of whom are much smarter and more well-read than me. Intelligence does not cause rebellion - indeed, to paraphrase the wise sage Laozi, contentment is a mark of intelligence. On overpopulation, yes, I know that's a real problem and I think more needs to be done to solve it. But I also think this does not necessarily make us stupider than animals. We're smarter because we know how to make tools, not knowing how to use them wisely does not make us dumber (that's a gross oversimplification, I know, but the rule is right). So now that we're at the end of this debate, what have we learnt? My opponent has attempted to justify why we are animals, then I refocused the debate and showed why we're not animals. I had 2 reasons for doubting his model and 2 for believing mine, which the debate has largely centered around. As you can see from my analysis above, all four have fallen to my side of the house in the debate today. I'd like to thank my opponent for making such a fun case to rebut, and do a last-second con-vote pitch. Not that I need to, of course!