That's not what this debate is really about. The proponents of "humans are different" are actually thinking "humans are superior". They can make a case for that, but only in terms that confer advantages and entitlement to humans.

Take this example:

> Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning

and apply it to an encounter in the forest between a human and a venomous snake.

Imagine one kills the other without provocation.

Which animal was good, and which one was evil?

Let's try that exercise again three more times. I'll give you more information for each case:

1. The human was your pregnant wife.

2. The human was the mass murderer, Adolf X.

3. The snake was hungry and scared, and had a family to care for.