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...
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...
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.
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)
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...
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.
Protecting Animal Rights
Animal rights is ethically justified, in the fact that it's basic principle lies in the foundations of the value of life. If you believe that animal rights is unjustified then you also have to believe that human rights is unjustified. What makes someone care about another persons life? What makes me care about your life? Why are murderers sentenced to prison? Society as a whole puts value on life...and those that do not value life (like the murderers) are removed from society, and made to suffer...
animal Rights
Animalsare just like humans they have feeling sjust ike us so they need to think double time on that...
animal rights
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life....