Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

My opponent states "One is superior to the other, would saving the life of the doctor be a better option than, say a child's? Why and why not?" My opponent is forgetting that this is the matter of the value of an animal's life over a human's life, not adult's life over a child's life. Even so, there's a reason people would choose to save the child's life over the doctor's. The doctor is more valuable now, but when the doctor is dead, and, say, the child becomes a doctor, the child's life is more valuable. The only reason say the child's life has more value is that they have more life to live; more potential. I personally feel that this is a very unreasonable, misleading metaphor for this topic, since there is little potential for animals to become as intelligent as humans in the near future. My opponent says, "Perhaps Insect and Plant rights will be discussed in another argument, but as stated above, lesser rights will be distributed between domesticated and wild-life; domesticated getting more and wild animals getting more and wild animals getting less." I would like to point out that an insect is an animal, and the only reason we feel sympathy for cats, dogs, rats, cows, etc. is because they are closer to us in evolutionary terms. These animals and humans are mammals. However, people squish bugs every day without feeling the need to "save" them. Is this not what the entire argument was about? All animal's rights? First con makes the claim that all animals need some, lesser rights, but once I mentioned animals people rarely consider, he changed his argument from giving all animals some lesser rights to only domesticated animals having them. To prove this, in his first argument, he said, "Another thing, on the road if you do not make an active attempt to miss a person in the middle of the road for whatever stupid reason, you get charged with either murder or manslaughter. However, hit an animal? Keep going, just roadkill, nothing to see here." The fact is, wild animals, like raccoons, are not domesticated. My opponent is not supporting his claim. And, since humans domesticated animals in the first place, we deserve to have power over them. No offense, but my opponent can be a hypocrite sometimes. He tries to take the things I say and interpret them the wrong way, just as he accuses me of. For example, "Quoted directly from you: 'Humans are the only animals that know how the universe really works.' This statement states that Humans know how the Universe works, in which case is different from as you said, 'I simply meant that they knew way more than animals.' That also implies that other animals have a concept on the how the Universe works." For those that did not get my point, humans know about stars, black holes, the fact that Earth goes around the sun, and other things about the universe. Animals do not. It is that simple. However, my opponent does not appear to see it that way. The fact we are debating about space when we are supposed to be debating about animal's rights is silly. If anything, my opponent is trying to say that I change my claim while he doesn't admit he is constantly changing his. For example: I would also like to quote some things said in his pat arguments: "I am suggesting giving them more time, as stated in my compromise, a place where they can be given a few more years to stay alive and be amongst the 'superior' beings." "The owner does, as a matter of fact, sign the paperwork for the adoption process, entitles YOU, the 'superior' being, the human owner, to take full responsibility for the animal." "Justifying the death of the abused animal and disregarding the 'superior' being that abused them, the Human." Notice that "superior" in quotes is used to in a sarcastic manner to say that humans are not really superior to animals. However, con later says, "My opponent states: 'We can both agree that human life is more superior. And as we all know, superior things are greater in importance.' I agree." Once again, con is changing his ideas. So why is con trying to accuse ME of this? As far as I can tell, he is the one who is really changing his arguments. Furthermore, my opponent says, "Emotions and Ethics are in your mind, however," This really depends on how you interpret it. Ethical appeal, (ethos) is often referred to as "the hand." Emotional appeal, (pathos) is represented by "the heart." Logic, (logos) is, of course, "the brain." When you think of it this way, emotions and ethics do not appeal to your mind. My opponent also creates the impression that the human race has done nothing good by saying, "The history of the Human Race: How it's arrogance destroyed the world and all it's inhabitants." If humans were truly arrogant, we wouldn't even be having this debate right now. Even I, who am denying that humans will destroy the Earth, have to admit that humans have harmed the environment. If we were arrogant, people wouldn't be creating alternative energy sources like solar panels (I see those all the time nowadays), we wouldn't be recycling (every classroom at my school has one), and we wouldn't have a whole day dedicated to planting trees and helping Earth. The reality is, humans are admitting their mistakes, and they really DO care. And despite our past, it doesn't mean we can't change the future. That's what we are, and will be doing; changing the future for the better. Source: http://changingminds.org... One last message to voters: please don't be biased. I understand that many people are trying to prevent the cruelty of animals. I agree with this, too. But you have to remember, SOMEONE had to take up my opponent's challenge. (When I saw the challenge, I noticed it had 51 views and no one had actually taken the challenge yet. That said, con had a pretty good opening argument.) I chose to do this debate because I love seeing other people's ideas and seeing where they come from. So please, vote based on who did the better job, and not based on what you personally believe. Thank you.