Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

My opponent states that "If we were 'equal' to animals, we would be able to join a pack of wolves as if we were one of them." Just because one can not join a pack of animals and be like them, does not make one superior or inferior to them, as a matter of fact, a pack of wolves may not accept another animal as a part of their pack, but only because they are different, but it does not make one superior to another. A wolf may see it's packs survival above the lives of others, but it also may not see it as being superior, just necessary. Another interesting thing about animals is that there are stories about a pack of wolves taking in very young humans as apart of it's own pack and raise it themselves, called "Feral Children" or "Wild Children." So, if humans are naturally superior to animals, why is it that a human requires to nurtured by another human to become human, but if without human contact it becomes 'like an animal'? Perhaps Humans and Animals are not so different after all, but rather it is how they are raised that makes them 'superior' to animals? As domestic animals are seen as different from wild animals, superior in ways because they can tolerate the presence of a 'superior' being, humans? My opponent states that "... you can't give a lion an iPod and a television set and expect them to use it as we would." However, technology made for humans and built by humans, are tailored FOR humans, not animals. There are cases in which animals have adopted their own tools used for their own specific purposes, that being to make their survival easier, instead of using luxury tools like an iPhone and Television set. What would an animal need with an iPhone or a Television set? If some alien species handed us a piece of super advanced technology, would we use it in the same way they would? Would we be able to utilize it's full capabilities? And finally, would their technology being super advanced make them 'superior'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states that: "But the 'abandonment' by their owners really means the animals have mental issues." A rather bold assumption there, not all pet owners abandon their animals because they have 'mental issues,' in fact I am sure that very little animals have any issues mentally or physically that causes the animal to be given up. However, regardless of what has causes the owner to give up the animal, the fact remains the same, the animal, whether or not they have 'mental issues' are put down after a while if they are not to be adopted. You are justifying the killing of an animal because no one will take it, because it is "completely painless," which yes, it is a more 'humane' approach, but the end is the same, they die. Now, if the owner could just take their cat or dog with them in a cat carrier, why is it they leave them behind? Perhaps because the place they are moving to has a strict "No pet" policy. If the same place had a "No Child" policy, would the result be different? I mean, you can always get another child as you can get another pet, can you not? I do not see why there can not be a foster home for abandoned animals to give them more time, especially for the ones without 'mental issues' since, as you stated, is a valid enough reason to euthanize one. The reason for animals being put down are ridiculous, because the owners are not responsible or can not afford to take care of the animal, it is the first thing given up rather than to change their lifestyle and spending to support both the animal and themselves. I am not suggesting that animals not be put down, as there are valid reasons to, but 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states that: "As for overpopulation, people are, no doubt, valuing human life over those of animals. This is human instinct. I believe that early humans had to believe this to survive." So it is natural for a human to believe he is superior to others, instead of being one with the animals like feral children are and can be? Being on the top of the food chain, sure, but destroying nature to make living more luxurious? Sure, I can believe chopping down trees en masse to make sure that people have homes or paper to write on, or anything really, I am not suggesting that this is entirely wrong (nor entirely right) but to take responsibility for what one has destroyed, like say, planting another tree to replace the one cut down? My point is, survival of the fittest, I get that, all animals see it this way, but why does that make one superior? Putting one race over another is selfish, but necessary for survival as you said, but prioritizing your own race's survival above all others is different from doing it at the expense of other races. If another species was superior in every way to us, whether or not they would do the same, worse, or better would depend on that species. I agree that one should fix ones own problems before attempting to fix others, but it is different from doing it at another's expense, as we do to animals. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states that "I would also like to point out that animals humans consider to need 'rights' are closer to us in evolutionary terms." When one is threatened by another, it is instinctual to fight or flight (flee) from that situation, which is okay, as it is defending oneself, however why is it that defending yourself from another human whom is trying to kill you punishable by law? Why is an animal fighting back in self defense considered in the wrong and killed because of it? The animal does not even need to kill the human, only harm or threaten to do harm, and not just the animal that gets in trouble, but the owner is reprimanded as well. I am suggesting that perhaps it is time to give animals right, perhaps not EQUAL rights, as the Human race is much too arrogant to do so, but a LESSER rights perhaps. Plants are alive too, but whether or not they can apply to have rights, let alone need them, is another debate. Plants are, in fact, necessary to the survival of all life, as they produce the oxygen we breathe, so needlessly destroying so much of it is foolish and irresponsible of the Human race, especially since they are not replanted after being destroyed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent states that: "Finally, you do have to realize that when you eat steak or chicken, you are superior to the cows and chickens..." Correct, I do understand that it is necessary to survive, but it does not make you superior to the cattle or chicken you slaughter to eat it; if a pack of Wolf devours a human, does that make it superior to that human? If a cow or chicken were omnivores and killed and devoured a human, would that make them superior? If two species feasted on each other, would that make the two superior to each other at the same time? Circular logic, eating something does not make you superior. Killing other animals for survival is natural and apart of instinct for all animals, however, that is for food, doing scientific experiments or abusing an animal is different, or even hunting them for the hell of it, is much different. Not saying Hunting is wrong, as it as all animals hunt, but no animal hunts down other animals because it finds it fun and thrilling, but rather because it is necessary. I am fully aware that not all life is equal, but it is how I see things when and if I would have to make a decision; being human or animal means nothing, my decision is based on my emotional attachment to the person or animal, not choosing one because it is more valuable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The compromises I have given in my first argument is basically just giving Animals a lesser form of rights Humans have, or "Lesser Rights" as I coined.