The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
alissamcg8703
Pro (for)
Losing
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 2 votes the winner is...
SocialDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 255 times Debate No: 88272
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

SocialDemocrat

Con

I am against animal rights. I shall define animal rights.

Animal rights-rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and any and all other services to humans.

Whoever accepts shall say why animal rights are a positive and should stay in place.
Burden of proof is shared here.
alissamcg8703

Pro

Ok first of all, humans are technically animals so you're basically saying that you yourself don't want rights. Next, I will say that yes hunting is ok just as long as it is for food and the animal isn't domesticated or have a human family etc.. If you are just killing animals for fun then that is actually a sign of being a psychopath. Anything else than hunting for food is just cruel.
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Con

Okay, yes humans can qualify as animals. However at the end of my definition I specifically said "...and any and all other services to humans." I made it extremely clear I was not talking about humans.

In any case under the definition if hunting is not outlawed completely and that includes for food then that is not animal rights. You say you are only against recreational hunting, so you concede.
alissamcg8703

Pro

First, I thought this was a debate and not a "Here's the definitions and you're wrong". Secondly, medical and cosmetic research labs kill animals 80% of the time and there are many more promising methods.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Con

No but listen, I said we were debating on a specific definition of animal rights. You changed that, saying that you agree with some of it but not all. That is a concession. I hoped to have a debate, but you said you partly agree, so we're done here.
alissamcg8703

Pro

alissamcg8703 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
alissamcg8703

Pro

alissamcg8703 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 8 months ago
SocialDemocrat
Oh i see what you mean with an implication, whatever I think my position is clear anyways.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 8 months ago
SocialDemocrat
No implication at all. In any case I gave a definition if you do not agree with this hey man anyone who accepts is able to see it.
Posted by Briannj17 8 months ago
Briannj17
This is a more debatable definition of animal rights, "Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests"such as the need to avoid suffering"should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings."
https://www.google.ca...
Posted by Briannj17 8 months ago
Briannj17
You mean animal rights are in place? By your definition they are not as we are allowed to hunt, we use animals for medical research as well as in the classroom and animals are used for helping people. (Seeing eye dogs, pets, etc. etc. etc.) So your definition of animal rights is not in place at this time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratalissamcg8703Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Wretched_Lime 8 months ago
Wretched_Lime
SocialDemocratalissamcg8703Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving the convincing arguments points to Con because he defined animal rights before Pro accepted the debate in R1 and Pro conceded that hunting was okay. Pro's own R1 loses him the debate because he agrees that hunting is okay, but the terms of the debate define freedom from hunting to be an animal right.