Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

Let me rephrase. I didn't mean hunt but attack."I have already proven that it is a dogs nature to be friendly, and loyal. Thus dogs are not naturally cruel as my opponent states." - ConIf dogs are naturally friendly and loyal but not cruel, please explain these to those innocent kids and old peoplehttp://express.whereilive.com.au...http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au...http://www.abc.net.au...To be honest, before I started this debate 2 weeks ago I had only one argument in mind and my argument was following this logic:whether a dog or a cat is superior?-Because they are animals, the way we assess them will be a little different from the way we assess human beings.-Thus I brought up the first argument in round one which was whether they are naturally our friends, whether they are naturally safe and beneficial to humans.-I didn't ignore the fact that dogs and cats are kept as pets and act friendly towards humans. However my argument was on the issues of dogs and cats attacking humans.-I kept asking my opponent through out the debate that why dogs and cats could attack human if they are naturally our friends?-My opponent kept ignoring my questions.-He stated in his first round rebutt explaining dogs attack human as being ferocious.-The reason I totally ignore the issue of physical performance of dogs and cats was because I believe such argument doesn't worth to be debated because in terms of physical performance that a dog or cat, neither can't be considered as superior than lions, tigers, and even snakes.-However my opponent phantom brought it up. He claimed that dogs and cats attack human because they are ferocious and can be feared which make them superior.-I was amazed and shocked that my opponent have had such unbelievable argument. My argument was explaining because they can hurt people just like any other animals do, so they are naturally the same as other animals. phantom ignores my argument and said because they are ferocious so they are superior. That is how the second argument was created as phantom also used as his second main premise.-Here in my final round I want to say that the second premise was not my argument it was actually my opponents argument. I refused to bring it up and talk about it becasue i think it didnt worth it. Because I believe that the only chance that dogs and cats could stand out from other animals and claim superior than others is when they are naturally our mate. and the meaning of a friend here is to not attack us at least!-I would like my opponent phantom to imagine a senario. I have said we can not claim dogs and cats naturally superior because they sometimes could reveal their natural cruelty and hurt people. however my opponent said they attack because they are ferociou, thus superior. Please phantom, if one day you are attacked by a dog, don't go to police, but give the dog that attacked you a nice and warm hug. Because according to your logic, it was a perfect proven to your argument and you should worship the dog which attacked you, they are superior.-Therefore through out this debate I have one and only one argument, they are not superior because they are like the other wild animals, sometime could harm our safety, betray us, not understand us, causing trauma.-If my opponent could explain why dogs and cats attack humans? Not because they are ferociou. I think those kids and old people deserve a better answer than that.Vote Pro! As our world need justice, and our animals need justice! All mammals are created equal!