Animals Should Be Treated Equally

The first two paragraphs of my opponent"s case were not used to make arguments, the first one was restating the resolution while the second paragraph was giving information about animal testing. Pro only states, "Animal testing is a prime example of humans exerting power over helpless lab animals.", which does not express an argument, therefore there is no rebuttal needed for the first two paragraphs, but I would point out that my opponent is saying we shouldn"t test drugs on animals, which leads to the advancement of cures and medicine. Without testing on animals, we would have to test it on humans, but my opponent can not argue that humans should be tested instead, since the resolution calls for equality. However, my opponent could argue that both animals and humans should be tested and the quote provided demonstrates that, but then it wouldn"t have impact on the resolution. In my opponent"s third paragraph, two arguments are made. Firstly, zoos lead to unnecessary deaths to the zoo workers, and secondly, the space animals get in zoos is equivalent to the space humans get in bathtubs The latter is not equivalent since a human lying down barely has any wiggle room, while the animals in zoos sometimes have cages as big as a house. Addressing the former, I subject my opponent to proving that the amount of zoo workers dying is impactful enough to get of zoos. By observation, zoo worker deaths are not common, and removing zoos because of a few deaths would lead to further removing things that are ridiculous to remove. Like sports and certain medicine since sometimes there are deaths involved which could have been avoided by not participating in the activity, which would be the same reasoning for zoo workers. . "No need to get me started on slaughterhouses; this video should cover it." This is not an argument so no rebuttal needed here. Now, in my opponent"s last statement, he/she states that humans do not have the right to abuse animals. However, the resolution states animals should be treated equally, equally does not entail anything about not being able to abuse. If both animals and humans were abused, then they would be considered equal. What equality entails, is that both are considered the same, but since my opponent conceded that we are somewhat superior, "All in all, I think humans feel superior**** to all other forms of life on this Earth which isn't necessarily untrue but it definitely doesn't constitute the right to abuse animals", then we have somewhat of a difference in status, therefore my opponent conceded that humans are not equal to animals in status, therefore if pro says humans aren"t equal to animals, then this pretty much refute my opponent"s case. To put it simply, my opponent is arguing animal should be treated equally, equally means of same status (at least), however my opponent says humans aren"t equal in status, therefore humans can not be equal to animals. Treating animals equally would mean not being able to eat animal meat, since we as humans, don"t do that to other humans. But this would eventually lead to disorder amongst the food chain, and also would inconvenience, and even indirectly lead to the deaths of people looking for sustenance, since starving humans generally don"t eat other people for sustenance. Peace out fam.