Non-humans animals should have equal rights to humans

Pro, I would ask that you double space the lines between my statements and yours when you"re quoting, because it"s difficult to differentiate when they are so close. "I would appreciate it if Con stuck to attacking the argument and not how it is made. Furthermore, I"m sure voters will agree, I laid out my argument in a clear and coherent manner so I am struggling to understand where Con is coming from." I didn"t criticize in that manner for the Lolz, or to damage your integrity, but that is the truth, and I was indeed having difficulty understanding your thought process and Platform. There is no rules, I have the ability to address the debate as I see fit. Pro forgets to quote my statements in the second refutation. Pro shouldn"t be making it this difficult for me to debate. "Indeed this is relevant. If you accept that it is subjective and that you do not care whether someone can read Shakespeare then this means you accept my argument. Namely, that it does not matter whether one is capable of experiencing higher pleasures or not. You admit that this is irrelevant thus accepting my argument." No,It"s indeed not Relevant, for the reasons of being Narrow Minded and Irrelevant. I"m not accepting your argument whatsoever. "Again you appear to be confused. This argument was meant to be reductio ad absurdum. It was meant to show that running over the black man would be wrong (as you accept). If you accept this then the capacity to experience higher and lower pleasures [1] is irrelevant. If this capacity is irrelevant then it cannot be used by those opposing animal rights. A point aside on the topic of utilitarianism (irrelevant to this debate but I have to mention it). You say "I wouldn't run either of them over!" Well I"m afraid that is not possible in the thought experiment. You would have to run one of them over. Even by not acting you would run one over." My confusion stems from the Notion that I must Run a Individual over. Regardless of whether I"m right or wrong, That doesn"t corrolate to the argument. I would ask you keep on track. "Its it almost comedic that you respond by branding the argument comedic. Of course some animals have superior intellect to some humans. There are humans that cannot think. Assuming you admit animals can think then the conclusion that follows is that some animals are superior in intellect to some humans. An example of low intellect in humans are those with the condition lissencephaly who have IQ scores lower than 20.[3] An animal has a greater IQ than that. For instance parrots have been shown to be as intelligent as four year old humans.[4]" Does it not bother you your comparing a vast Minority, to a Majority? That"s called false equivalency. You cannot do that in debate. Do the majority of Humans have exceptionally low IQ"s? I would assume you say no, declaring this argument invalid. And even then, ALL animals would have to be smarter then disabled Individuals, there creating inequality over more intelligent animals over less intelligent animals. "Ok I will state why my other argument applies here. P1: Morality requires a capacity to reason P2: Some humans cannot reason[3] C: The word "human" does mean a being that can reason." Morality does not require a capacity to reason, see Religion. I looked at your link, and this condition you speak of is for 1. Extremely rare. 2. Very few people EVER are born with it. 3.Yet again, I false equivalency. Comparing ALL animals, to that of Very few Humans. "The word "human" does mean a being that can reason." I don"t recall saying that. "Therefore, again we see that we cannot discriminate between humans and animals on the grounds that humans can be moral. We cannot claim that human life matters more than animal life. This is because this statement is backed up with the justification that humans (as true by definition) are capable of morality. This justification is wrong as not all humans are capable of morality. Therefore, being human in itself does not make one more valuable." I"ve explained to you how these arguments are invalid and with much Bias and False equivalnecy. "I"m sorry if you thought so. Many of the points I had made I felt were obvious to any reader. Anyway, in an attempt to please my opponent I have attempted to include scientific evidence. This evidence I feel backs up what was already obvious to the majority of readers." Viewers, the evidence provided by Pro is not Scientific in any way. He provides 2 links to Philosophy Storage Sites, and then 2 on another obscure site. There are no author marking left by anybody, and no scientific links or journals attached, so I would ask for explanation towards how there "Scientific" Almost all points were confusing, Indelible, and incoherent. I had difficulty following along. He leans heavily on this "Evidence", however I point how there unsupported by actual scientists. Conclusion. Pro Provides Ludicrous Evidence that is unscientific and Obscure, (exception being Stanford Link,) Makes Biased Claims, and Makes False equivalencies, as I pointed out, and Makes it difficult for me to understand the debate, because of him not quoting multiple statements from my platform. I apologize for my sardonic tone obviously felt in this Round. I felt my opponent made ignorant and little researched claims, and did little to support them.