Humans are not different from animals.

I'd like to welcome my opponent to this site and express my gratitude to him for opening this debate. I have 2 contentions and 2 points of rebuttal. But first, what are we actually asking ourselves here? The issue is whether or not a human is different from an animal. "Animal" is a term scientists use to describe a wide range of living organisms. We have invented it, thus we can choose to include the human species in our definition or not. My case is that there are a number of good reasons why including humans in the animal kingdom is wrong. On my opponent's definitions, my Webster's New Universal Unabridged dictionary gives two definitions for animal. One is the one my opponent cited. The other is "any such living thing other than a human being." I interpret the latter definition to be more accurate, my opponent insists otherwise. I do, however, agree with his definition of "human." On to my rebuttal: 1. My opponent insists there that humans are one and the same, biologically, as the other creatures of the animal kingdom. I, however, contend that we are considerably more advanced in our cognitive ability. One need simply look at Wikipedia's page for humans: http://en.wikipedia.org.... You'll find headings for art (no animals), music (very few animals and scant evidence), literature (no animals), philosophy (no animals), self reflection (no animals), religion (no animals), language (few animals, all less advanced in structure and complexity) and so on. My point here is that our much-increased cognitive ability sets us apart from other animals biologically. Therefore there is a biological distinction between us and other animals. 2. My opponent insists that we are socially alike to animals. At least in my country, people do not act like animals. In fact, the people pride themselves on how they don't act like the animals. I'd like my opponent to list the ways in which we are socially alike to the animals. Finally my substantive contentions: 1. As a species, we have MADE OURSELVES distinct from other animals. However, the scientific establishment that for the most part drove this movement, has defined us as being the same. We can't be the same and distinct at the same time. Therefore it's against the sum of all human progress to declare us animals. Either we are animals and we have not progressed, or we are not animals and we have. I think some of our scientific achievements are a testimony to this progression - how many whales have landed orbiters on Mars? How many lizards have built atomic bombs? How many llamas have built towers as large as our skyscrapers? 2. Viewing humans as animals has dangerous societal consequences. It was one of the key doctrines of both Hitler and Stalin, and was central to the beliefs of such infamous philosophers as Marx and Nietzsche. Therefore we should not view humans and animals as being the same. This has nothing to do with a religious objection, but rather that every system of normative ethics would agree that the moot falls. Several philosophical frameworks ie Platonic would also hold objection on other grounds. 3. As a related point to the above, giving animals the same status as humans suggests that they should have the same rights and responsibilities as humans. This, however, is insane because the animals are not clever enough to understand these rights or responsibilities. It's also retarded because of the animal's lack of moral judgement. See also: http://mises.org... That's why I'm advocating your CON vote today.