The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
cam25aus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,860 times Debate No: 87234
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (69)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Con

Full Resolution: Animals should have rights

I am Con, which means that my opponent is Pro.

Rules

1. No forfeiting
2. No trolling
3. There will be 10 judges to vote on the debate.
4. Pro starts arguing in round 1, and waives the final round
5. No kritiks or semantics
6. Definitons are not arguable
7. Comment if wanting to accept.
8. No following the rules= loss.

Judges

Judges so far

1. Hayd
2. ballpit
3. lannan
4. WhineyMagiciann5
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

I will ask 10 people to vote on the debate. If somone says no, there will be a replacement, and anyone that PMs me will be a judge.

Structure

1. Rules Definiton/ Arguments

2. Arguments/ Rebuttals

3. Rebuttals/ Defense

4. Defense/ Conclusion, Why I won this debate, rebuttals to defense

5. Conclusion, Why I won this debate, rebuttals to defense/ Waive

Definitions

1. Animal: any organism of the Kingdom Animalia including humans, not insects, sponges, you get what I mean, those animals like plankton.

2. Rights:
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]



Comment if wanting to accept.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.debate.org...
cam25aus

Pro

Uhhhh... You're con, so you don't want animal rights. I accepted this because we're going for the same thing.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

My opponent had to make his arguments in his first round. Lets say that was his argument. Next round is rebuttals for him. My opponent is supporting for animal rights.

Framework

BoP is on Pro. I will be making arguments about Utilitarianism, endangered animals. Now, why am I arguing for no animal rights? Because this animals should not be in zoos debates are exact debates of animal rights, if animals have rights they should not be in zoos, if they do not have rights, they should be in cages.

Argument 1: Utilitarianism

What is the definiton Utilitarianism? It is this.

Utilitarianism: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people

This basically means that if there are more good things than bad things, more benefits than diadvantages, they do it.

Okay so, what are the good things of animals not having rights, and animals in zoos

Advantages

1. We can have animal testing, because animal testing is very important for us humans to have cures, medical issues, much more. This research has saved many lives, even animal lives, also humans. [12], [13], [14], [15]

2. Humans eat. We need protein. Also meat and seafood are good. If animals have rights, that means that we cannot eat meat and seafood, which is a major source of protein, because many people don't eat lots of beans because meat tastes better. [16]

3. Many animals will become extinct. Making zoos will not only save animals, it will make people have a chance looking at them.

4. There are so many things you can’t do if animals have rights, like you can’t fish, hunt, learn things in zoos, go to zoos, and it is hard to study from animals. [11]

There are just so many advantages for animals not having rights, but if animals do have rights, that means that we can’t fish, hunt, eat meat or seafood, study for animals, go to zoos, and the endangered animals will all die. If we want animals like pandas still to be alive, the zoo is the only choice.

Argument 2: Animals will become extinct

This is kinda like my fourth advantage, but it will be explained more.

Yes, endangered animals will be extinct.

Lets take an example of a siberian tiger.

“The Siberian –or Amur- tiger is considered a critically endangered species with the primary threats to its’ survival in the wild being poaching and habitat loss from intensive logging and development.”

My opponent can say that we can stop. But sadly we can’t. Fur coats are not only pretty, they are also very warm, good for the winter. So the tiger will soon become extinct. But if there are zoos, then we can at least know there are some tigers that are safe, but bored in zoos. Even if there are no tigers left, there will be in zoos. These tigers will have babies also. This is the only way we can stop this. Yes, many people are trying to protect tigers from hunting, but there is two more problems.

The first problem is habit loss.

“Tigers are extremely territorial though so they will fight other animals and other tigers that invade their space. This problem has become more of an issue due to the natural environment for tigers being destroyed at an alarming rate, as a male tiger may have a territory of up to 60 to 100 square kilometers, while females up to 20 square kilometers, as this numbers change according with the habitat and subspecies. As a result they have to venture into new territories to be able to find adequate amounts of food.” [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

This is a big space. However, tigers can’t use this much. People build homes, and there territory will be destroyed. This means that they fight with other tigers, but because the spaces are getting smaller, they have to fight, and one will probably die. [9], [10]

The last problem is food. There is not a lot of food in Siberia or any foods that a tiger can eat, like deer or rabbits. The tigers will soon starve. Many tigers even died because of this. If they are in zoos though, they can have food easily.

Conclusion

There are tons of advantages if animals do not have rights and if animals are in zoos. Vote for Con!

Sources

[1] http://www.tigersincrisis.com...

[2]http://www.tigers.org.za...

[3] http://www.savetigersnow.org...

[4]http://bengaltigerconservation.blogspot.fr...

[5]http://www.speciesconservation.org...

[6] http://www.tigersincrisis.com...

[7]https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[8] http://www.tigers-world.com...

[9] http://www.lions.org...

[10] http://bigcatrescue.org...

[11] http://www.wisebread.com...

[12]http://www.pro-test.org.uk...

[13] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

[14] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[15] http://www.listland.com...

[16] http://www.webmd.com...

Thank you.

cam25aus

Pro

This is SO off of a website. That's probably what took you so long.
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

I extend my arguments.
cam25aus

Pro

cam25aus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

I extend my arguments. Vote for Con!
cam25aus

Pro

cam25aus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Con

Vote for Con!
cam25aus

Pro

cam25aus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
Sure tej
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
I would love to see this debate with a proper opponent. you do already have the rules and your first argument. you could just transfer them.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Fire, would you be willing to debate me on the same issue?
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@theshaun. Guess i got something wrong. Just that your profile kind of remided me of trolls i run into alot. I a apologize for that statement.
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
@WhineyMagiciann5 "You do realize that when two different people analyze lthr same things it is possible for different conclusions." Then at least one of them made a mistake.

"The fact you automatically deffend your self by insulting my observation skills doesnt exactly set a good precedent." That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Precedent, in this case, is subjective.

"At least im trying to remain calm." As am I. If you actually believed I was angry, then you should either start studying psychology or never attempt to analyze someone through their posts again, because you are awful at it. Bluntness does not equal emotional.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
You do realize that when two different people analyze lthr same things it is possible for different conclusions. The fact you automatically deffend your self by insulting my observation skills doesnt exactly set a good precedent. At least im trying to remain calm.
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
@WhineyMagiciann5 I couldn't care less about your profile. An actual troll would attempt to make their's appear normal. A person having a very strict sense of priority does not make them a troll. So once again, your observation skills need some work.

"Seems doesnt mean is first off." I didn't say it does. I said I'm interested in why you think so. Your reason reduced to it's shortest explanation would simply be poor analyzing, you could have just said that.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@cam25aus it's not plagiarized. if you copy paste someone's argument you can see if it already exists or not.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
Fire wings has an interesting stance with zoos and how it can be best for them. Id like to hear more about that sometimes
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@Theshaun. Seems doesnt mean is first off. Me thinking you were a trolling is an inference i got after checking your profile. This quote in particular
"Beliefs:All stupid people need to be informed about how stupid they are so they learn to just stay out of everyone else's way." Or these
"Activities:Pwning stupid people."
"Sports Teams:None, cause they all lose sometimes. If you aren't good enough to win every time then you are a waste of my time."
These are just examples of what experiences i have with trolls, acting they are superior. Before you accuse me of being one at least check my profile.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 8 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
fire_wingscam25aus
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture of 3 rounds
Vote Placed by lannan13 8 months ago
lannan13
fire_wingscam25aus
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture. Pro had also accused Con of plagerism, though there wasn't any.