Humans should be made into Autotrophs

Since my opponent said misquoting is not allowed and the only type of quoting I know how to do is misquoting, I will not be able to quote my opponent. My opponent wrote a bunch of fancy stuff about humans that I didn't even read because it was boring. However, I'm still sure my opponent is wrong. If a Homo Erectus walked up to you, would you call it human? No, you wouldn't (I can read minds). Therefore, my opponent is wrong. Although I'm making a dubious claim here, I'm sure it wouldn't feel good to be an inferior species. The regular old Homo Sapiens would not have a good time being inferior. Trust me, I am an Inferiorologist. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE INFERIOR? I'm probably not supposed to misquote myself either, but that's a risk I'm more willing to take. "Not not killing other organisms is not not not an issue" - Me (stutter)This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Not killing other organisms being beneficial is my opponent's opinion. No proof was provided for my opponent's stance. "The dependence would not not simply transfer to ununnatural inorganic substances" - Me againMy opponent assets these are more abundant. Again, no proof is provided. There are a lot of humans. Not the sun, but these "easily accessible chemicals" will become significantly less easy to access once they become a food supply. If you consider the population of the world (roughly 7 billion according to the US Census Board) and the energy they need (about 2000 calories a day) then you see that humans ought to use roughly 14000000000000 calories per day. Converted to kJ, humans use roughly 58,576,000,000 kJ per day. That's a lot. We'll deplete anything we use a food source simply because there are so many of us and not many things get the chance to eat us. Then we'll cause Global Cooling by eating all the CO2, and the earth will fall into another Ice Age: The Movie. Hopefully, my opponent has been so bemused by my psuedoscience that it will not be able to respond. If my opponent thinks other heterotrophs aren't getting fed up with us, it has never walked through a jungle. The other autotrophs have had a lot of time to bond with each other, and at this point they know they're stuck with each other. They wouldn't take so kindly to newcomers. It's like an exclusive club. Heterotrophs hate us too, but unfortunately we're too strong for them. In fact, everything hates us. It's best not to make them hate us more. "This already is" - MeMy opponent tried to intimidate me by putting [sic] after my quote. However, I will not fall for its fearmongering tactics. A vote for Con is a vote for freedom. Cooking already is a form of art, and eating already is for pleasure and nutrients. I think the burden is on my opponent to prove this is not already so, seeing as my opponent asserted this first. From my opponent's own source "It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way. .. Our digestive tract just chews all that stuff up - the chloroplasts and the DNA". The only conclusion I can draw from this is that my opponent is a treacherous slug attempting to undermine humanity by trying to convince us to become autotrophs when we cannot. A vote for Con is a vote for humans. I assert my opponent's last line is fabrication. I am certain that my opponent bites, and I challenge it to prove otherwise. Seriously, do you really want humans to join the ranks of the mucilage producing? No, of course you don't.