Cats are the greatest animal known to man.

<<1). Point: Cats are quick. Myself: You concede the skydiving debate to me by saying "it is doubtful" thus there is still a chance that a cheetah will nose dive while skydiving thus succeeding in being just as fast as man. On your car point you are wrong. Humans did not create the car Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot did. Humans cannot take credit for one genius's invention. You are arguing for mankind as a whole here not the genius's of mankind. As I am arguing for cats as a whole not genius cats.>> Humans are also heavier than cheetahs, so they will fall at a faster rate, so it seems your cheetah loses again. Was Cugnot a cheetah or a man? A man. Ignoring the fact that he created the car, let us still use the car in a race to test quickness. Man will still win the race because cats cannot even start the car (even polydactyl cats cannot accomplish this feat). So your argument still fails, as the cheetah cannot win averaged racing times. < > You misunderstood. The caller would be inside the quiet plane when making the call, then he would jump. < > No, it wouldn't, as cats do not announce themselves when they're about to pounce on unsuspecting prey. < > I could just as easily change this argument to primates, but I'm confident that people will see that you attribute an invention to a genius, but the manufacturers and common everyday users of such an inventions as a habit owned by the species. < > Bacon did (questionably) invent the gun, but it is man who has mastered the gun and uses it every single day, so the gun is then an invention that (a) man created and now uses regularly. It is an item that has been claimed by the species of man and mankind recognizes this as his invention. < > This was never in dispute. I was saying humans are smarter and therefore the greatest animal. <> Your attribution of invention to individual is official invalid for the remainder of this debate, as I've already stated how you are wrong in this matter. < > LOL! Talking cats? Telepathic cats? Give me a break! There is cuteness and intelligence, but humans have more than cats, which is why man is the greatest. < > So when cats lick their sphincters, what do you suggest is being discussed? Philosophy? HA! I don't think so. < > That specific society has fallen, so their feline gods were obviously not as great as you make them out to be. < > If cats were not destroyed regularly by animal shelters, I'd be inclined to agree, but as that is not the case, I am right and you are most definitely wrong. < > Cats do not put any deliberation on whether they serve as our hobbies/companions or not. Are you saying that cats in zoos have pulled off a strategic plan by pretending to struggle against capture? Of course not. They are captives put on display for our own personal amusement. < > Cats cannot read, talk, type out thoughts, so they obviously aren't intentionally using us for our technology. Especially when many cats attempt to escape from their human captors all the time. They are our companions by force in these cases; not our betters. < > Again, you are wrong. We destroy unwanted cats daily and when we catch strays, we kill them too, if no one wants to adopt them. < > I don't ever avoid large cats. I love seeing them in their cages at the zoo. <<......humans (as whole, not some subset) think cats are more cute thus my point stands. Also you never argue cuddly so I win on that as well.>> No, you lose because human babies are more cute and cuddly than kittens. < > In your opinion, but that does not make it so for everyone. <<1.My opponent also tries to prove humans more graceful by saying ballerinas are but cats as a whole are still more graceful.>> Since when is grace a deciding factor of greatness? It is not, and this is a matter of opinion. < > It's absurd not to include genius inventions when you are comparing one species to another in matters of greatness. When making such comparisons it goes without saying that you use the best of each species to determine "greatness". < > Notice how my opponent fears defeat in this debate and is trying to alter the perameters of the debate in his favor. Are you going to fall for this trick? < > My opponent made no mention either way of citing man's inventions in his argument in Round Two after I introduced them in Round ONE. He is now trying to use the deceitful tactic of not being able to respond as a means to lock you into voting for him. Underhanded indeed. He saw that defeat was inevitable in Round One.