Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

I look forward to an intellectually stimulating debate. Definitions Superior – Better Inferior – Worse In my opponent’s arguments it would seem that he has confused these definitions to be synonyms for words such as ‘good’ or ‘impressive. ’ Adjectives like these are largely subjective, but notions such as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ are not necessarily subjective, but can have objective grounds as I will show. Objectivity of Logic The laws of logic are objective, for regardless of whether or not humans exist or whether the laws of logic are being actively thought about, the laws always have an application on reality. For example, whether or not humans exist the Law of Non-Contradiction would hold that the universe cannot both be and not be in the same sense at the same time. If logic were subjective upon human ideas and emotions, any single conclusion could never be derived; everything would be purely relativistic. If logic were subjective therefore, it could be concluded that the universe could both be and not be in the same sense of the word at the same time and avoid all absurdity. I doubt my opponent will deny that logic is objective, but it is important that I establish this point. By establishing the objectivity of logic, I can therefore use logic as a means of showing that human beings are objectively superior or inferior to any said thing. Subjective Superiority/Inferiority My opponent specifically attacks a subjective form of superiority/inferiority. The problem with his argument is that he attacks not a logically based position on superiority/inferiority, but an emotionally based position on superiority/inferiority. As my opponent argued, what we deem good is based on our own personal bias of what constitutes ‘good. ’ However, if we set objective standards of what constitutes superiority or inferiority through the use of logic, then it is possible to deem something objectively superior/inferior. For something to be objectively inferior/superior, it is important that vague statements such as ‘humans are better than cats’ are avoided, since such statements seldom have logical grounds to be supported on. In order to establish an objective ground for superiority/inferiority, we need a ground for comparing something in relation to an act. Obviously we will get nowhere in terms of objective superiority/inferiority if we just state ‘Tim is a good runner’ and then conclude that Tim is superior to other creatures. Rather, if Tim can run a 5:00 mile and Paul can run a 6:00 mile, then on the grounds of ‘who is a faster runner,’ we can objectively conclude that it is Tim. We established the agents being compared and the act of comparison. My emotions and biases did not predict who was better, but rather the superiority of Tim was based on his actions in comparison to Paul. Objective Superiority/Inferiority Now from the reasoning established in the last round, I will form a syllogism showing an example of objective superiority/inferiority. - P1. If humans are better than cats at building skyscrapers, then humans are more superior than cats at building skyscrapers. P2. Humans are better than cats at building skyscrapers. C1. Therefore humans are more superior than cats at building skyscrapers. Premise 2 is not based on my personal biases or emotions, but rather it is based on an objective assessment of reality. Of course this syllogism is not meant to be disputed, for it is not an actual argument, but rather only an example of what I mean by objective superiority/inferiority. - The syllogism shown follows an extremely simple form of formal logic: P1. If A, then A P2. A C1. Therefore A - Logic, not emotion nor personal biases, is used as a basis for establishing superiority/inferiority, and therefore this establishment is objective. Conclusion If you can actually run a mile under 5 minutes: Over to you.