The Instigator
sharkba1twhohaha
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WCBC15
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 82484
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

sharkba1twhohaha

Pro

I am debating the topic of Animal rights.
I believe that animals deserve to have rights just as people do. Animals are sentient just as much as humans. They are able to feel and experience things such as belonging, hurt, happiness and fear. Throughout their lives they have no control over their future and well being. We as humans have taken over their lives and continue to make choices for all animals. Although many of these animals are given homes and or loving families, some are put in situations that are undeserved and because they are animals, they cannot do anything about it. We as humans at the age or 18 are allowed to change our own future if we wish to so. Or even before, if the situation is unfair or abusive we are helped by others to move to a better place. There are laws enforcing this issue and outlawing abuse to humans, but there are very few (and very vague) laws to protect animals. I believe that since they are not allowed to do so by themselves, the law should protect every animal"s life.
WCBC15

Con

Let me be clear that i am not for treating animals carelessly but treating animals decently, with special sensitivity to their pain and suffering. But animals do not have rights as we see it. Rights only have meaning within a moral community. When a lion kills a zebra its not murder, as it is the way of life. (1)

I have to disagree with pro on the points that animals don't have control over there future. Animals have control over their future just as much as humans do which isn't much. If we all life on earth are "One" meaning were all animals i don't see how one has more "rights" than another. If Peter Singer steps into a lions den, the lioness is not going to think twice about either killing for food (which humans do) killing to protect (Which humans do) killing to train with her cubs (which humans do) or killing just for fun which animals are known to do.

I have a question for Pro, where do these "rights" come from? If its man made then i don't see the inherent point of animals having rights. If its universal to all life, why do we not see animals punished by their specie for killing another animal from a different specie?

(1)http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
sharkba1twhohaha

Pro

Let me begin by clarifying my stance a bit better. I apologize for not doing so before. I am taking the stance of rights for captured/domestic animals, animals that rely completely on humans throughout their lives.

With that being said, how do animals have more rights than humans do? Please explain

Moving to your point on thought before killing. I agree that a lioness would not use reason to explain her actions, "But reasoning is just one form of intelligence." (1). And intelligence is only one form of superiority. I constantly hear people talking about how humans are the superior species above all others. Since humans have these thoughts that animals do not, shouldn"t we use these thoughts? We only expect what that "being" is capable of, so why all of a sudden are humans not made to do all that they are capable of? Humans continue to play "god" with all other lives. We not only make decisions for us, but for "our" animals as well. I want to be clear that I am not saying that we shouldn"t make decisions for animals in general, I am just stating that we should make good choices for the animals" sake, not just for our own.

What I mean by "rights" is the control of our species (humans) to treat animals fairly and to have show compassion even if they do not posses it themselves (which some do not). Of course you cannot prosecute an animal for killing another because they know no different and they are not capable of knowing any different. We on the other hand are. We know the difference between these things (as you explained above). Humans should be held accountable to for the things humans are capable of, including treating animals fair. To take care of them to a certain level, since we have given ourselves this responsibility. To take the "job" seriously.
WCBC15

Con

So "Animal Rights" isn't so much a right to life as it is laws made for man? If its just about making laws that means animals don't inherently have rights. I argue if animals don't acknowledge the idea "rights" of other animals including humans, then there might be an indication that "rights" are not something intrinsic but something made up.

I still want the questions answered: where do these "rights" come from? If its man made then i don't see the inherent point of animals having rights. If its universal to all life, why do we not see animals punished by their specie for killing another animal from a different specie?
Debate Round No. 2
sharkba1twhohaha

Pro

sharkba1twhohaha forfeited this round.
WCBC15

Con

WCBC15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.