The Instigator
LYSSMYSTIC
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MisterDeku
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MisterDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,122 times Debate No: 35420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

LYSSMYSTIC

Pro

I will keep my argument short and simple. Animals should have rights. Animals are not toys, servants or objects they are living and breathing organisms. Animals , despite popular belief, do feel pain and do have some emotions. Animals are tortured and killed every day. Yes, We do need some animals for use of food/products but at what cost ? Humans are destroying this planet, we can be very wasteful and destructive. Without animals none of us would be alive, they help us with many things and are all apart of the environment we live in. When we do need food and other things from animals it should be done in the most humane manner. Animals deserve to live and breathe just like anyone else does, therefore animals should have rights and be treated with care and respect.
MisterDeku

Con

1. There will be no way to enforce rights among other animals. You can tell a snake all-day-long that a mouse has as much of a right to exist as he does, but if that snake gets hungry he's going to eat the mouse anyway.

2. It's hypocritical to only give animals rights when it's convenient. Where do we draw the line between an animal's right to property and a person's rights to the same property? Can I use a tree that a bird lives in?

3. What about plants? They're just as much alive as animals; if animals should have rights, so should plants.

4. Humane treatment isn't the same thing as having rights. I agree that people should take care of their animals, but you don't have to tag the word 'rights' onto an animal in order to do that
Debate Round No. 1
LYSSMYSTIC

Pro

I was never suggesting that rights be enforced between animals, I agree that it is absurd to think that you would tell an animal to value another animals rights. My basic argument is that animals should have rights in the sense that they deserve to live and breathe in peace just like any human. Animals should not be tortured, tested on, or abused.When I say "rights" I do not mean human rights, like the right to vote. Animals deserve the same amount of respect and the same basic freedoms/rights of all living creatures animal , plant or human. All living creatures should be given the same chance to live, and each should be respected because all living creatures are apart of the world we live in and do their part to "make the world go round".
MisterDeku

Con

Pro's biggest flaw is on the maintenance of rights among other animals. Pro recognizes that we can't enforce rights among other animals, yet contends that they should have those right. If animals don't respect other animal's rights, they don't deserve rights themselves.

Pro is arguing that people shouldn't do things that harm animals, but this is unfair. It assumes people are the only creatures who kill other animals, and it only gives animals rights when it's convenient. We can't live in a world where rights can be taken away subjectively, it undermines rights at a basic level. If we claim a dog has the right to life, we can't disregard it when a person's life is in danger.

In short, Pro's arguments are all emotion with no application.
Debate Round No. 2
LYSSMYSTIC

Pro

LYSSMYSTIC forfeited this round.
MisterDeku

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cr0_Magn0n 1 year ago
Cr0_Magn0n
We don't know if animals have the mental capacity to recognize other animals rights, but we (us humans) can. Moreover, carnivores need to hunt, kill, and consume animal material. I doubt a wolf would "respect" the rights of a lamb as much as a human might, so why are you going to bring up carnivorous animals into the debate when you're supposed to be arguing about human treatment towards animals?

It's not a flaw. It's just irrelevance brought up by Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
LYSSMYSTICMisterDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: single round forfeit (it also hurts argument, but missing one round doesn't dismantle it like an Full Forfeit does). Argument: R1 pro commits the fallacy of argument by assertion (it should be because it should), lossely veiled as a pathos appeal. Con's 1st and 3rd points were fallaciously weak. His 4th point is where traction begins (that point alone may have been better). R2, pro dropped the pretext of having more than an emotional appeal, falling back on just 'wouldn't it be nice' type stuff. Con expanded a point from before, getting into the realms of trolling, but it did make me laugh (yes a minor strike against his conduct, but not enough to tie that category). "In short, Pro's arguments are all emotion with no application."
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
LYSSMYSTICMisterDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF