The question being posed here is "Are some humans considered superior to other humans?" The crucial point is that the question asks if some humans are CONSIDERED superior (i.E. Not whether or not they actually ARE superior). I could cite countless examples of individuals portraying a conception of innate superiority over others, but it is only required that there be a single counterexample to the alternative to show that it MUST be true that SOME humans are CONSIDERED superior to other humans.
If it is the case (which it may well be, given the massive misinterpretation of the question) that the intended query is more along the lines of "ARE some humans superior to other humans?" then that immediately begs the question, "What constitutes superiority?" If it is true or false that some humans are superior to others, we need a firm definition of superiority to work from. The issue, then, becomes a much broader one, and we find that while some aspects of "goodness" seem at least MOSTLY universal, there are many which are at the center of controversy. Every individual has their own understanding of "good" and "bad," so supposing that some humans are "superior" to others (which for the sake of discussion I have defined as "better than") has no objective answer.
In response to a claim that one human is superior to another, I would ask "Superior in what way?" The response to that question holds the substance of the continued discussion, should there even be one.