Humans are right to be considered animals.

First I'm going to question why humans were put into the group of animals. Second I will look at how humans are fundamentally different from animals. Third I will consider society and why grouping humans with animals is negative for them. Finally I will sum up where all this is leading. My opponent's case is this - that because some scientists say humans are animals, humans must be animals. There are three issues with this argument. First it's based off a personal blog from a computer programmer that has not been peer-reviewed, has not been updated since 2001 and is therefore not reliable - and I should add that the site does not even cite its sources! Second it's just an assertion, not an argument - just because I say there is a huge gem in my backyard does not require everyone else to disprove it, it requires me to prove it. In the same way, just because scientists say so does not mean I should have to disprove it, rather that those scientists should have to prove it. I have seen no categorical proof from my opponent. Third, it's downright absurd - do you bring sick people to an animal hospital? Does the RSPCA sell humans as pets? My opponent needs to defend his wacky definition of animal, which clearly is not our common usage of the word. In the comments, many have stated debates are not about definitions so I should drop this. I will not give in to that bullying. My opponent cannot assert a tautology and expect to win using an appeal to the authority of a website, just on the grounds that she so happens to be pro (sorry for getting your gender wrong last time, by the way! ). But I actually concede that many misguided scientists really believe humans are animals. Why do they believe this? It is a great misconception that just because we evolved from animals, we must be an animal. While we are certainly not fungi, plants etc, we could be something entirely different. We might even share the characteristics of an animal, just like animals share many characteristics with plants (both have DNA etc). Once fungi were included among plants, then we found reason to separate them and we did (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). So creating an entirely new classification is not taboo in science and must be open as a possibility. Evolution provides no such rational. One could look then to the characteristics of an animal - except that there is really only a single trait that all animals share, this being heterotrophia (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Trouble is, animals are not the only heterotrophes (take fungi, for instance) so that isn't a good way of classifying animals either. Another reason why scientists think humans are animals is because they are capable of locomotion - despite the fact some other "animals" are not! So you see there is really nothing holding the animal kingdom, as distinct from everyone else, together. The real truth is that scientists have just applied a great big label over a whole bunch of organisms. "Animal" is almost the default position, for everything that is non-plant, non-fungi and multicellular. Classes have more merit than kingdoms, orders still more than classes and so on. This is because the more limited you make the scope of your classification, the more similar your creatures become. Let's zoom down to a suitable level as I move on to my second point. Consider humans as opposed to other members of the primates order (not primata as my opponent asserts, which I'm sure is French). Non-human primates live in very specific regions of the world and exhibit an extremely wide range of characteristics (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Humans, the only members of the homo genus, have a number of characteristics that simply do not fit with all the others. They live in many more conditions. Their brains are nearly three times the size of the next-closest primate brain (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). 80% of the proteins in the human and chimpanzee genomes are different (. http://www.whyevolution.com...). Humans are the only creatures within this or any other order that appears to exhibit metaphysical, aesthetic or moral awareness. The anatomical differences are too numerous to mention. There are real differences between humans and every other animal. The question is now whether these kinds of differences are enough to exclude humans from the primates order. If indeed they are, we have no longer any reason to include humans within animalia. Later I will show why it is not a good thing to include humans in some other order, in case my opponent is planning that attack. I have two reasons for claiming that these differences are sufficient. First, because no other order is so diverse as to have a difference of 80% of proteins between two close biological members. If one were to plot a DNA equilibrium with a worm on one end and a human on the other, chimpanzees would be almost exactly in the middle - we are twice as far ahead as chimpanzees, compared to worms. Second, it's because of the sheer range of additional characteristics, especially the anatomical and cognitive differences. I cannot think of a single order other than primates that has so diverse a range of features. If humans were excluded primates would still be above average, but no longer the only outlier. This scientific discrepancy needs fixing now. There are two options - create a new order within animal, just for humans, or create a new kingdom for humans. Of these two options, there are many reasons to prefer the latter. I have three reasons to bring this claim. First, it has dangerous philosophical ramifications. If humans are to view each other as animals it would be accepting cannibalism, it would be counter to every form of religion and normative ethical framework, and further it would be accepting the central premise of such kind men as Hitler and Stalin, with their doctrines that people are there to be manipulated like cattle. These are ramifications that I'm sure most would not be prepared to accept. Second it implies animals can claim equal rights and responsibilities to humans. This is absurd, first because it's impossible for humans to police this properly, but second because animals simply do not have the mental capacity to enter into this social contract. For example, humans need to be able to transfer endangered pandas from one zoo to another without going to court for human (which my opponent defines as "animal") trafficking. Third it's an insult to the scientific establishment that has made us distinct from animals through technology and research. What use are our arts and music if we are only "animals"? What use is this debating website? Therefore I find the only reasonable conclusion remaining is that humans should not be animals. I should reinforce something I said at the start though. I do not need to make a prima face case. I am the defendant, and my accuser is yet to bring out any charge. I want to hear from her a logical reason why she is bringing her claim. Voters, don't vote on instinct, vote on reason. My opponent brings no arguments. All the arguments are on my side.