Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

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. However, the importance of something is, as you said, depends on your "emotions and ethics" as for some, a superior item may be worth less to a person who has grown a sentimental attachment to it. Does superiority make something more important? Varies from person to person, but most likely yes. My opponent states: "When I said humans knew how the universe worked, I simply meant that they knew way more than animals." Since when does knowing more of something mean you know everything about it? 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. "This formula actually does tell how things work. Nuclear bombs work because a certain amount of mass is being transformed into pure energy. This formula may also be the key to figuring out how the universe was created; the big bang. " May =/= certainty. You are mistaking theories for truths. I can see how things like this may be in your astronomy books, but these topics are related to theoretical and quantum physics. My opponent states: "The human race has been around for only a million years, and in the history of Earth, that is a very short time compared to the billions of years the Earth has been around." Your original statement: "Humans are currently exploring the universe, and are starting to prepare for a journey into deep space..." Stating that Human beings are "exploring the universe" made me jump to conclusions, and for that I apologize; however, would it not have been better to say "Humans are attempting to explore the Universe" or "Humans are exploring the solar system" as this first step hasn't even been accomplished yet. "We are preparing for space exploration" would have been much better. Back to the main point. Opponent: "Isn't this the same as asking why a human's is worth more?" That all depends on whether or not you see superiority/inferiority as the only means of judging someone's worth. For one thing, a doctor has a PhD, tons of money, tons of friends, loving family, and a wife and kids. However, this doctor has much experience and has aged well over the years. A child of about the age of 4 is dependent on his family, has almost no friends, does have an okay family, and has a mother and father who fight all of the time. The doctor is superior to the child in every way; age, finances, looks, knowledge, social life, et al. This doctor is superior, and by your logic, worth more than the life of the child, am I right? If you had to choose one or the other's life to save, who would it be? The doctor can continue to save more lives and live his superior life to the fullest. The child may go down a bad path, or perhaps even surpass the doctor in the future, but this is irrelevant. 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? "Animals eat, sleep, and die. Humans used to be the same way, until we gave our lives value." I think you mean "Animals ONLY eat, sleep, and die" as humans do the same thing. However, is it not generalizing a bit that all Animals just do these three things? Reproduction is definitely something you missed. Some animals even help nature just by being around and doing their native thing. Humans, however, do not naturally have a role in nature besides, as you said, ruling and being superior. Which also includes destroying nature as well, but as you said, the life of humanity is far above those of animals and plants. "Humans created the possibility of getting themselves into the history book." Funny, as humans were the one who created the History books in the first place, unless you mean a theoretical 'history book'. The history of the Human Race: How it's arrogance destroyed the world and all it's inhabitants. "And whether they do it for better of for worse, humans do still have the power to change the world." In my first argument, I am giving ways as to how Humans can do better and more positive. Matter of fact, if humanity ever discovered how to recreate the big bang, it could impact the entire Universe. What ever happened to "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility"? "But like I said in the preceding paragraph, the biggest factor that separates humans from animals is that they have the power to think- beyond instinct. We are intelligent." My argument of comparing and contrasting Human and Animal life was done in the first argument. This is a huge contrast, yes, but is missing the comparisons and other contrasts that I stated in the first argument. They were already solved anyway, so this debate is being wrapped up (This is the last round of the debate, your response will be the last.) "And as for animal rights..." I said animals should have LESSER rights, not equal rights, but still rights of its own. Humans, being the superior beings know better when it comes it conflict, and so they should be the ones to suffer consequences when they do wrong upon an animal. If an animal does wrong without good reason (Self Defense, or is provoked in some deliberate manor) it shall be euthanized If a human does wrong to an animal without good reason, he should be jailed for 5 to 10 years (5 being minimum) and should no longer be able to own a pet (Goes on his record). Animal testing will be more 'humane' in that no dangerous experiments will be done upon an animal more than once if the results turns out to go foul. Basically, see my first argument and compromises on Lesser Rights, it explains everything (Remember, you only have one more response before the debate ends). Also to reiterate, the Lesser Rights will be distributed between domesticated animals and wild animals; domesticated getting more as they live around humans, wild getting less because there are unpredictable and uncontrollable situations. "...And once again, this only appeals to your emotions and ethics, and not to your mind." Emotions and Ethics are in your mind, however, I believe you were referring to the cognitive and logical thought process. "female spiders will eat their husband" 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 less (enough to at least not be tortured). "When you think of it practically, giving animals rights makes no sense" Stated many times before, the rights I am suggesting giving to animals is significantly less. Speaking of rights, whether or not someone is charged for murder or cannibalism is based on law enforcement. Another thing would be to specify what 'murder' is, done by law enforcement. The Universal Human Rights linked below. I am suggesting, once again, to give animals Lesser Rights, not Equal Rights. Laws dictate on whether something is a crime or not (except for Slavery and inhumane treatment such as torture). To wrap everything up: Humans are superior (in more aspects) to animals, that much is true, however are judging by superiority/inferiority the only ways to judge the worth of a person? What about sentimental attachment? If you had to choose between two human beings, would choosing the 'superior' one in the most aspects be the 'right', or best choice? On to animals: Animals deserve rights, but not equal to humans, but lesser rights; rights that dictate their treatment by Human beings to make sure it is not cruel and unjust. Also that the laws accommodate to the Lesser Rights as well. See my opening argument for Lesser Rights and compromises. http://www.un.org...