what makes humanity different than animals

Well I'm stumped, but I will give this my best shot. My first argument is labeled under intelligence, but I think power should be there too. Humans are by far the most powerful species. Again, power in itself does not make one species necessarily better than another unless we are speaking in the evolutionary sense. Yet it goes to show just how different we are from animals. I. Power and intelligence First of all, my opponent has conceded that we are more powerful and intelligent. My opponent argues a different issue, being that humans are corrupt. Now I will show that this is actually an argument showing that humans are quite different than animals. Power, especially to the amount humans have, corrupts, but it can only corrupt if there is a mind behind it, a mind that is superior to animals'. For example, if we put our very own Peter the Grey Parrot in charge of the world, he would not be corrupt. If he did something wrong, it would only be because Peter didn't know any better. But if humans obtain such power and corrupt, it is because we know what is right and wrong. I will continue this in the argument of morals. II. Instinct vs. emotion I am afraid to say, when a master strikes his dog, the dog whimpers because he is hurt and afraid and not because it is seeking forgiveness. Nor can the dog deal out forgiveness, for in order to forgive you must have done something evil. Animals cannot do evil in the human sense of the word, for they only work by instinct. The instinct of fear, which correlates with pain and surprise, is what the dog feels when he is struck. Sure, the dog may come back and know that his master won't strike him again, but its not because he feels forgiven. My opponent asserts that, not only can animals feel love and act lovingly, but that their sense of love is even better than the human sense. This is a very strong statement, and also an incorrect one. Some animals such as the turtle dove mate for life. This is described as "the ultimate form of love" which is unfounded. Also, my opponent's definition of love is only one of many. It is something very hard to define as there are countless forms of love. I've always thought that laying one's life down for another is the ultimate act of love. But for this we will be speaking of love in the romantic, mating sense of the word. My opponent's argument about mating for life fails on the fact that turtle doves mate for life due to instinct. They don't have much choice when it comes to marriage. Otherwise, we would see some turtle doves mate for life and then others become dove prostitutes. This is illogical because the doves do not have the choice to love as humans do. In order to love in the human sense, one must have the option not to love. Humans are the only creatures who have this type of choice. With regards to instinct, and the sheep falling off the cliff, my opponent argues that humans do the same with regards to past presidents. I'm not sure how to respond to this as I'm not sure that every president was followed off a "cliff" so to speak. However, I'm pretty sure that no president is every fully backed by every citizen showing that there is a choice to follow presidents. Thus, it is not instinct. Sheep follow the leader off the cliff and have no choice. My opponent also asserts that humans have the instinct to go to war, which is completely unfounded. I think I have shown constantly that while humans have instincts, we also have the ability to choose between our instincts unlike animals. III. Beauty/subjectivity My argument here was that humans can comprehend subjective concepts. Humans have an opinion on physical beauty for example. It is not a matter of instinct, for if it was, we should all have the same opinion on it, and it wouldn't really be an opinion at all. Animals don't have such a concept of beauty; when they feel the instinct to mate, they choose another based on size or age perhaps. This can hardly be described as a sense beauty. If you painted a moose's coat blue, its mate wouldn't care. Every moose finds a mate in the same way, instinctually. With humans you'll have a host of opinions based on different cultures and individual people. Also, humans have another sense of beauty that no other animal can understand. We look at other objects and creatures and find them beautiful. We find flowers, peacocks, and sunsets beautiful. Humans also perceive humor, I have never seen anything other than a human laugh. We learn to laugh at a very young age as well. I'm simply touching on subjective concepts, and these all point to the fact that we are more than simply instinctual creatures. IV. Morality My opponent's argument here is not well constructed and hard to understand. I understand that animals don't speak our language, yet we know that don't know what is right and wrong becuase they work purely on instinct as shown previously. My opponent seems to concede that only humans have morals and then turns it into an attack on the humans. This is similar to the first response regarding intelligence. My opponent tries to make morals out to be a bad thing, which makes no sense for morals are our understanding of good and bad. Con claims that morals start wars, yet he doesn't explain how (just "big bang boom?"). This is another unfounded assertion. Wars are usually started because of greed. Then my opponent says, "so long as we kill thousands of our own kind, we can never be better than animals." This is basically Con's only argument. Humans are evil, but does that make animals any better then humans? My opponent must make note that while humans are more evil than other creatures, we are also better than other creatures with regards to being good and moral. In fact, we are the only creatures that can be moral and consequently the only creatures that can be immoral. Likewise, since humans are the only creatures that can love, we are also the only creatures that can hate. This all goes to show that we are still above every other species despite being corrupt. V. I asked my cousin's dog if humans were on a different level than animals, and she agreed as well. My opponent has conceded that humans are evolutionary superior to any animal. In this sense, my opponent has already admitted animals are not equal with humans. "It is this something that can recognize art, music, love, beauty, hate, justice, and peace, things that no beast can understand. From this something, this spirit, this human sense, that no other creature has, we may conclude that animals are not equal to humans. Perhaps my opponent can show that animals posses such a 'spirit,' but that would be quite a challenge." My opponent never directly answered this statement from the previous round. I hope that readers understand that it these abilities that put humans on a different level than animals. I hope no one is influenced by my opponent's profile picture, as the cat is not actually writing on the laptop. Cat's cannot read. Thank you very much.