Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

In the last argument, my opponent talked about an alien having extremely advanced technology and asked "would their technology being super advanced make them 'superior'?" According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'superior' means higher in rank, status, or quality. The new alien technology would definitely be more quality and would be of a better rank than our technology today. They would definitely be superior. My opponent also points out that euthanizing an animal is still killing it, and says that the people who euthanize their pets are "not responsible." I'm not saying that every human being is necessarily responsible, but if an animal is going wild while the owner tries to prevent them from doing so, is that the owner's fault? Should the owner get blamed even though they're trying their best to keep the animal calm? My opponent says "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." But what if you have a wild animal tearing up your house and putting you children in danger? Or is the animal excused because the owner is "not responsible?" The reality is, most of the poor animals from the pound are NOT socialized properly and they DO have mental issues. I have gone to people's houses and seen their cats and dogs that they "saved" from the shelter. They are aggressive. And every year, thousands of dogs are bought from the shelter, and taken back after a few days because of the animal's personality. It would be much easier for the animals if they were euthanized in the first place. Another one of con's statements was that we have luxurious lives, as opposed to animals. It isn't true. There will never be absolute luxury. Just like animals, we have our hardships, too. However, they are much different ones. Animals face the hardships of trying to survive, while humans are past that. Humans deal with politics, technology, education, jobs, etc. What makes humans "superior" is that we've gotten past the stage of simply surviving. Finally, my opponent says, "it does not make you superior to the cattle or chicken you slaughter to eat it." But once again, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'superior' means higher in rank, status, or quality. So, if you are of a higher rank in the food chain, according to the definition, you would be superior. Con also says, "If two species feasted on each other, would that make the two superior to each other at the same time?" That sounds great in theory, but there's a reason the food chain is progressing. There's a reason we have predator and prey. Two species do not eat each other at the same time. My opponent also states " if a pack of Wolf devours a human, does that make it superior to that human?" You have to remember, humans are omnivores, and omnivores are not supposed to be on top of the food chain. So why are we? Humans, like I said before, got past that point of survival. Once they did that, they started to innovate. That's what sets us apart form the rest of the Animal Kingdom. Our minds. Our intellect. So yes, wolves should be superior to humans. But humans overcame that obstacle, making us the greatest species on Earth (for now). If there is a fall of the human race, and another species becomes the most powerful species on the planet, they will be superior to us. I am not saying animals are much different form us. I am saying we earned our right to be superior, despite the fact the odds were against us. As for hunting for sport, you have to be a complete idiot to think that's fun. Don't ask me why people do it. I have no idea how it relates to this topic.