The Instigator
carl2567
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Schopenhauer
Con (against)
Winning
7 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 1 vote the winner is...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 56631
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

carl2567

Pro



1. Clarification of topic
I will be arguing that animals should have the right to live without fear of being killed inhumanely by humans, the contender will be arguing that animals shouldnot have the right to live without fear of being killed inhumanely by humans.

2. Rules -No swearing

3. My points

1. Many famous people agree that animals should have rights. If they agree, we should listen to them because they are the experts on what we should do. http://www.betterworld.net...

2. Humans have evolved from animals as Darwin's theory proves. As humans have rights, animals too should have at least the basic rights. Not giving rights to animals is equivalent to not giving to human beings with mental impairments.

3. Animals suffer, too.Since all pain and suffering is undesirable, humans should not inflict pain of animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments.
Schopenhauer

Con

I am actually unsure of animal rights, but I will be arguing against them.
Rebuttals...
"1. Many famous people agree that animals should have rights. If they agree, we should listen to them because they are the experts on what we should do."
This appears to be an appeal to authority, take this for example. A scientist must provide sufficient evidence for his science, if he does not then his ideas are invalid. The same goes for debating. We should never listen to someones ideas without sufficient evidence or logic, if they lack this their ideas are invalid. If one is famous, their ideas are not valid by the fact that they are famous.
"2. Humans have evolved from animals as Darwin's theory proves. As humans have rights, animals too should have at least the basic rights. Not giving rights to animals is equivalent to not giving to human beings with mental impairments."
The difference between other animals and people with mental impairments is that people with mental impairments belong to our race. Humans are social creatures, so we take care of each other in many settings. Humans have evolved to be omnivores, through both social and natural evolution. Though we originally ate less meat, we now eat much more partially because we now raise live stock.
"3. Animals suffer, too.Since all pain and suffering is undesirable, humans should not inflict pain of animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments."
Pain and suffering will always occur. In nature species dominate other species. Once again, it is different than discriminating against those who are handicapped. Because those who are handicapped are of the same species, they are familiar to us and we have the instinct created SOCIALLY, not naturally, to protect them. Humans destroy that which is foreign to our species to survive and thrive.

My own arguement is this, because the debate only specifies general animal rights I would put forth this arguement: It is impossible to get rid of meat because we will never be able to deny our own nature. Full animal rights are as likely as world peace, both go against our nature. Perhaps one day when we can alter our nature we may be able to stop eating meat.
Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
carl2567Schopenhauer
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's initial point is a fallacy and was accurately pointed out as such. However, the fallacy fallacy still plays. I think the issue here is definitional. Animal rights need not be the same rights, and I think the establishment of basic rights, that animals should be butchered without needless cruelty (I mean mad cow disease, it makes sense both ethically and scientifically). That would be a supportable position, and a position that goes back many ages to ancient times where the spirits were respected even as the animals were taken as food. Ethical butchers are still encased by a ethical framework, and in that, rather than attempting to make meat a crime, pro may have succeeded. Con accurately points this lout in his close.