That society ought to recognize animal rights
Once again I don't think either of us will really try to cheat with our definitions. "Society" is to be taken in the most general possible sense, so pointing out specific people who have better things to do than care about animal rights is not sufficient to carry the motion. Generally th...
Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights
Good debate, Lars. Hope to do a good one on Insider Trading in a few days.
Debate ends at 45:30. Feel free to skip through the prep time periods.
Pro/Affirmative: Wallstreetatheist (blue shirt and Americanish)
Con/Negative: larztheloser (black sweatshirt and New Zealandish--think Flight of the Conchords)
Justice requires the recognition of animal rights
This debate is for 16kadams tournament, round one.
I am affirming the resolution, my opponent is negating.
First round is for acceptance, everything else is for the debate.
I wish him luck.
animal rights
Affirmative Cases: a philosophical approach to defining animal rights. One of the single biggest issues in rounds so far for the Sept/Oct topic has been the definition of what animal rights would look like "in the real world". Defining precisely what animal rights we're talking about has been a source of great confusion and a number of rounds have been greatly muddled by squabbling over definitions. Specifically for the affirmative, defining animal rights has been a particularly troublesome...
Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.
First round will be for acceptance, following rounds for debate. Obviously, this is the current LD resolution. Let's try to debate it that way. Sources are important, but not overwhelmingly important. Logic, reason, etc. should be the grounds for compelling arguments. Kritiks are fine, so long as you do not willfully misinterpret the resolution or wage an assault on the dictionary. In our efforts we ought to mutually endeavor to test the strengths of our ideas, rather than quibble over phraseolo...
The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights
I will be arguing for animal rights, Con will argue against.
Also thanks to Illegalcombatant for the idea.
R1 for introductions.
Animal rights is an unjustified ethical doctrine.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate - I've been wanting to have this debate with my opponent specifically for awhile, so I hope this turns out well. To put it simply, it seems that Charlie here is one of the more prominent PETA advocates on this website, with his slew of PETA debates. Since it seems to be quite evident that he is in favor of PETA, one can easily draw the conclusion that he is also an animal right's activist - after all, if he isn't then he'd most likely be a hypocri...
Animal rights
My opponent will argue that Animals do not have rights. Here are my examples why they do have rights. First- Animals have "similar" rights as we do they may not be able to vote or do certain things that we humans can but here is some rights, they have the right to breath, they have right to live, the right to not be killed, and the right to not be held in captivity. Second- They have the right to do as they please, meaning they can think and do whatever action they choose....
Do non-human animal have rights
Non Human animals donot have any rights at all
This is a serious debate&...
Animal Rights
In order to be a just society, should animals have rights? I will argue Affirmative, but I am a novice debater, so I'd prefer someone who isn't going to annihilate me, I'd rather learn from this debate....