The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
mgajjar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 69036
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

tejretics

Pro

"Animal" is hereby defined as a sentient multicellular eukaryotic organism of the kingdom Animalia, with the ability to process pain and/or emotions. Sponges and simple polyps and medusans, for example, are excluded from this defining category; according to this definition, only fairly complex non-human species of the kingdom Animalia with a proper nervous system and the ability of a level of motion. Primarily, this debate deals with: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, gastropods, arthropods, echinoderms and annelids. Cnidarians and sponges (sponges, jellyfish, polyps, coral etc.) are not applicable in this debate, because of lack of complex nervous systems.

"Animal rights" is the idea that non-human animals (according to the above definition) are entitled to the POSSESSION of their own lives.

Humans often manipulate animals, treating them as property for their own selfish needs rather than treating them with compassion; if animals are not treated as property for selfish reasons, they "possess their own lives". (Thanks to Ra1n for pointing out the need to define this)

Round 1: I have defined the terms; Con must accept and pose the first argument AGAINST animal rights (in accordance to the above definition).
All other rounds: rebuttals and arguments.
Any mis-definition of these terms, or rights vs welfare arguments by Con will result in my immediate 7-point victory.

Sources for the definitions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal; The Oxford Dictionary of English (American edition, 2013); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
mgajjar

Con

You do have a valid point, I will give you that. But you should not forget the fact that humans need to have a healthy, regulated digestive system and a healthy body, therefore eating meat and other food given by an animal is extremely important.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

Rebuttal:

According to research in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Following a vegetarian diet reduces the mortality rate from ischemic heart disease by 25% (20% in females, 30% in males). Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome, dementias such as Alzheimer's disease, obesity, and other disorders. A study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian adults, conducted in Taiwan, showed that there was no major difference in the bone density of vegetarians and non-vegetarians, and showed that non-vegetarians are at equal risk from Vitamin B12 deficiency as vegetarians. The China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study conducted by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China has established a correlation between the consumption of animal products and a variety of chronic illnesses, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers. Vitamin B12 can be consumed by vegetarians in the form of tempeh, collard greens, leafy greens and tofu; Omega-3 fatty acids can be taken through walnuts, edible seeds and flaxseed oil. Milk can be consumed in its organic form by ethical vegetarians in certain countries, especially India (where beef is very rarely sold and is an unprofitable business) and some other countries. Milk can help in calcium and B12 deficiencies.

Ethical reason for animal rights:
Most people are unaware of the horrendous abuse that animals endure everyday; lab tests on animals have been proven unnecessary and are yet practiced by a variety of companies; animals are killed for ENTERTAINMENT (Spanish bullfighting) et cetera. Animals have the same ability to feel pain as humans, and many can even feel emotions. To help forge society, humans created a concept of ethics, based on the stronger psychology of human beings. While one can argue that ethics is only mutual, and meant for intra-human relationships, why do animals not deserve similar respect from humans? All sentient beings deserve respect. An animal may kill a human, and yet that animal is psychologically made to do such a thing; ethics is too complex for animals to practice. Humans, though, have the ability to extend compassion, and animals deserve this compassion.
Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect?
1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera.
2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society.
3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance.
4. Animals cannot commit "crimes". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of "ethics", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain.
Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights, and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories that practice animal testing.

Sources: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Mortality in Vegetarians and Non-vegetarians; BBC news, "Rejecting meat 'keeps weight low'."; Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets; International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders: Lower Body Mass Index in Non-meat Eaters; Diabetes Care Journal; Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease - by Mark P Mattson; Proceedings of the Nutrition Society; Public Health Nutrition: EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK; Environmental Values: Why the Naive Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive; Journal of Popular Culture: Configuring the Human in Western History; The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity; The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University)
mgajjar

Con

mgajjar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

The basic principle of equality is not equal treatment, it is equal CONSIDERATION. Animals deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being"s rights, "The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account. Why are we morally obligated to do so? It is because humans created the concept of morality. Morality is a subtle thing, and a subject of human psychology. Biologically, the human's developed morality intuitively to ensure the genetic survival of the human race, and for the survival of the human race, we need a balance in the ecosystem. Slaughtering animals destroys the balance of the ecosystem in a variety of ways. Some of these are described below:

1. Raising them for slaughter: For the formation of factory-farms, or any slaughter farms, there is a massive encroachment of wildlife, that results in the destruction of forests. According to the Worldwide Fund for Wildlife (WWF), 31% of the total land area is covered by forests; ideally, 46% of the Earth's land mass would have to be covered by forests for a balanced ecosystem.

2. Hunting: Hunting creates an imbalance in any habitat-ecosystem, by reducing the population of animals.

Conclusion: Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves, and prejudice is morally unacceptable. Refusal of animal rights is "discrimination by species".

Source: Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
mgajjar

Con

mgajjar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

As Con has forfeited the following round, there are no further rebuttals or arguments, hence guaranteeing my immediate 7-point victory.
mgajjar

Con

mgajjar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Ehh, I thought u were debating this with Ra1n?. Anyways good luck to both.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Nice DP tejretics.
Posted by Ra1n 1 year ago
Ra1n
I assume you want me to leave the last round empty as I am starting on round 1?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Yes, the cycles are now at 24 hours.
Posted by Ra1n 1 year ago
Ra1n
Would you also mind extending the time between rounds to 24 hours? I am a bit worried I will not be able to make the 12 hour cycles
Posted by Ra1n 1 year ago
Ra1n
Please define possession of their own lives as that is clearly the most important part of this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
tejreticsmgajjarTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
tejreticsmgajjarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture