Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

ACTION AND CONDITIONMy opponent tries to undermine my conclusions by stating that in order for valid determinations of superiority/inferiority to be made, we must take into account object, action, and condition. He says that if we don't do this, we can't reach a correct (objective) determination. He is right, but that doesn't mean we need to use these three in the way he wants. In his example my opponent states that the objects are two cats, the actions running a race, and the condition that whoever is faster is superior. The problem lies with the condition. Without adding anything after 'superior', he leaves it as an absolute statement; that is, that the winner is superior as a being, not just as a racer.My opponent is not explaining how being better at racing would make one cat better than the other. Better than the other at racing? Yes, that has been explained. But better than the other overall, in their entirety? How does being a better racer makes you better as a cat? No, this part has been skipped over. He has skipped over it because one cannot logically and objectively say that racing better makes a cat a better cat. Humans might think it makes them superior, but that is because we value speed. There could be an alien race out there that does not value speed. They might consider the slower cat to be superior, because they think speed sucks. Both of these conclusions about the same cat are subjective, as they are driven by different values.In order to cover for the fact that he is skipping this step, he is calling my way of thinking absurd. Perhaps he thinks that by repeating it enough times people will believe it. Yes, by saying that racing better does not make one better as a cat, I am disregarding the action's superiority in regards to the object's superiority, but that does not make me wrong. It means I am recognizing that we place value on people based on how we value what they can do, which makes our determinations of superiority or inferiority subjective, which renders them useless when answering the question of an object's superiority over another.My opponent wants to tie an action's superiority to an object's superiority, but, as I have shown, it would take some skipping of thought processes to do this, which is why his three part proposition on how to determine superiority/inferiority is fallacious. He is saying that using anything else would be absurd, because one couldn't reach an 'objective' conclusion otherwise. Another way to say that: 'That would be absurd, because I'd be wrong'. Re-read it. The closest he comes to a reason for saying one could not use anything but his system is because it'd be absurd, because you wouldn't be able to do what he needs to do to win. Aside from the logic of using such a system, it doesn't even make sense in terms of the resolution. As I explained in my last round, 'anything' includes any objects, NOT objects and their actions, at least if you're trying to reach an objective conclusion.VALUE AND SUPERIORITY"Value and superiority aren't necessarily connected to each other, and my opponent has yet to show they do."Superiority is a human concept. It is based off of things that we value. We value being able to run fast, so runners who are faster than others are deemed superior. If we for some reason valued running slowly, we'd call slower runners superior runners (or inferior runners, but the positive meaning behind 'inferior' in that context would be the same positive meaning behind 'superior' that we see in normal contexts).That is how the two are connected. We label things superior that we value. So we can label ourselves superior to cats because of our skyscrapers, but the driving force behind that labeling is a subjective appreciation of the ability to build skyscrapers. Far from the two not being necessarily connected, values drive conclusions of superiority.CONCLUSIONA human can build a skyscraper and a cat can't. We say we're superior at building skyscrapers because we value building skyscrapers. Assuming the cat could speak, it would say it is superior at building skyscrapers because it doesn't spend its time on something it doesn't consider worthwhile. Or it might say that it is inferior at building skyscrapers, but that it is superior because of that, because it isn't spending its time on something it considers to be value-less. Either way, both conclusions are subjective, as they are derivative of subjective values.Superiority in one activity does not add objective superiority to a being because 'superiority' comes from a subjective viewpoint of what matters and what doesn't. Yes, humans can build skyscrapers better than cats, but it is we who decide that this makes us superior, even though it is just opinion on our part that this is so. My opponent calls this absurd, but it is true. You cannot objectively compare an object to an object, which is why I am right. Thanks for reading through all this, assuming you did!