The Instigator
bobby_clarck
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Valansanoid
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Animals are not human beings, and they do not deserve the same treatment

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 3 votes the winner is...
Valansanoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 87073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

bobby_clarck

Con

Full Resolution and extent of debate:

I will be debating the substance of the idea that mankind are obliged to treat animals with respect and make sure that they are treated in a righteous way. To give the debate perspective, it will be debated both what entitles animals to have rights - and opposite, what entitles humans to have rights. That will bring in questions about concepts like morality and justice but the main-theme of the debate will remain about animal rights/animal treatment. In case of more theoretical questions, the arguments will remain based on known theories and facts, while the debate will not consider religion nor other superhuman beliefs. In order to ensure the substance and validity of the debate, both sides must defend their arguments with fact and reason. It will not be debated how complex animal minds are, how they feel/interpret pain or what is beneficial or non-beneficial for animal welfare. The debate will not concern animal welfare or industrial animal agriculture or any likewise specifics on this topic about animal rights but the question on whether or not humankind as the superior race have any obligations towards other animal races. The debate is not aimed to reflect any real-life cases, though arguments may be supported by examples from real life, if this is found to be helpful.

Rounds:

Round 1: Presentation of debate, acceptance & opening statements
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Both sides defend their original arguments and round up

Stick to the arguments of your original statement in round 2 & 3

Rules:

-A forfeit or concession is not allowed - be sure that you want to defend your side throughout the debate before accepting.

-No semantics, voting-conduct or trolling

-Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before posting first arguments. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

-Sources must be stated clearly within the posts, and may be referenced to directly in the arguments and listed below in links, like it is the example in this post

Definitions:

Right (noun): Qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval ; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

Mankind: "The human race ; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind

Consensus: A general agreement about something ; an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.

Morality: Beliefs about what is right behaviour and what is wrong behaviour ; conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Righteous: Morally good ; following religious or moral laws

_____________________________________________________________________

My side in the debate (opening statement):

In the debate, I will argue against (con) the above-mentioned idea that mankind is obliged to show any kind of respect or decency towards other animal species, since I do not believe that any objectively justifiable reason for this exists. Many people believe this, and feel like it is a moral obligation, and that all animals “deserve” to be treated with a certain decency.

Nature is not about morality nor the romantic picture of justice that is often painted when describing the rights of animals. These concepts about morality and justice are something that man has created and not universal, natural laws. From the origins of our planet, nature has been about what species have been the strongest and most fit for life on this planet. All individual species have fought for their continual survival and the strongest, most superior species have been on top of the food chain. This system is what has sustained life on this planet for millions of years and ensured maintenance of the natural balance of life on earth.

We should acknowledge this reality instead of abandoning it for these more romantic delusions created by Disney-movies and pet-hamsters, a by-product of our complex minds, because we do not owe other animals anything. We are not obliged towards any other species than our own. The main-concern for all animals are their own survival and the supply of their own demands. If for instance a wolf seeks shelter in a cave and finds some inferior animal inhabiting that cave, the wolf will not leave the cave to seek shelter elsewhere. It is not the “right” of the smaller animal to inhabit that shelter, and the wolf is not obliged to leave the animal in the cave and seek another shelter, even though the inferior animal was there first.

All this said, I do not think that people should beat up their animals or violate animals when it can be avoided but my point is that animals are not prescribed to any rights or likewise concerning how they are treated by humans.

____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Valansanoid

Pro

This argument is moral in nature, so I am likely to get a heavy amount of opposition.

Vertebrates are in a sort of fuzzy gray area, but invertebrates? I'd stomp a bug any day! I sure wouldn't stomp a dog, frog, fish (well...), or human to death, but bugs don't really have much in the way of complex feelings, and its hard to come up with why you would want to keep a bug alive. They don't have brains and they are huge pests, and spread horrors like ebola. If you can find 3 reasons, I sure would ask for a giant maggot for a pet!

Vertebrates, like dogs, rats, and kittens, are indeed sentient, and we do have a love for our dear domesticated animals, but why domesticate something so related to us if we aren't going to test medicine and help out the distant tribes suffering from shiver and other prions (those nigh-indestructible, murderous, replicating monstrosities)? And the poor people out there who can't get good food, because we aren't testing our GMOs on animals (because humans are riddled with rumors) to test for toxicity, and thus not allowing them? GMOs will save the world, and there's only one way to prove it.

Seriously, everyone, if we are to survive, other things like monkeys and our little kittens will have to suffer if we humans aren't willing to, however much we try to stop it.
Debate Round No. 1
bobby_clarck

Con

bobby_clarck forfeited this round.
Valansanoid

Pro

I'm sorry. Did you abandon this argument? I'll probably still be waiting.

I can't reply to a lack of response.
Debate Round No. 2
bobby_clarck

Con

bobby_clarck forfeited this round.
Valansanoid

Pro

Animals aren't humans, and they don't deserve the same treatment. Of course they shouldn't! That's just silly! It's clear we shouldn't abuse them but really!

Dogs can't go to human schools to learn, and there's a reason for that; there's no way they can grab a pencil and get writing.

Cats shouldn't be able to live alone in a house. Why not, you ask? Probably because they can't pay taxes, and they don't understand basic economics.

Lions shouldn't go to a lion show. If you're confused, I'll elaborate:
Lions shouldn't take part in the audience of a lion show.
This is for many reasons.
1. They're predatory, and will probably beat the living crap out of the rest of the audience.
2. They're big, and they might break the risers (like, over 1000 lbs. I'm not going to be discriminating against obese people)
3. They're endangered, and should be protected from human onslaughts
4. They've probably trained to act in the show, not participate as a viewer.

Really, if we make a law that animals deserve the same treatment as human beings, then that'll doom our children to encountering a bigger school bully than they've ever seen before: the Grizzly Bear.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Valansanoid 1 year ago
Valansanoid
See round 3 please.
Also, don't be a hypocrite, bobby_clark.
Posted by bobby_clarck 1 year ago
bobby_clarck
You misunderstood my arguments it seems, and your argumetns was not againts mine
Posted by Valansanoid 1 year ago
Valansanoid
Bobby? Did you troll me? If so, you did a pretty good job of it.
Posted by Valansanoid 1 year ago
Valansanoid
Buddy? You've got nine hours left. Please answer to round 1.
Posted by Valansanoid 1 year ago
Valansanoid
Oh, the irony! You forfeit this round, after telling me not to? No worries; there's round 3 still up.
Posted by philobudey 1 year ago
philobudey
Con, you write:

"The debate will...concern...the question on whether or not humankind as the superior race have any obligations towards other animal races."

"I do not think that people should beat up their animals or violate animals when it can be avoided but my point is that animals are not prescribed to any rights or likewise concerning how they are treated by humans."

Three questions and a hypothetical with questions:

1. Could you outline how/why the human race is superior?
2. Why don't you think people should beat up their animals or violate animals when it can be avoided?
3. What are some examples of animal violations that are avoidable vs. examples that are unavoidable?

Hypothetical:

If you lived in a hypothetical country that was voting on a ballot measure worded, "Should it be illegal for a person to torture his/her pet (e.g. dog, cat, horse, etc)?", you would vote "No". Is that correct?

If correct, this means, once again hypothetically speaking, if you were to know that your neighbor systematically tortured his pets on a daily basis, and that this torture was completely avoidable, while you believe this torture should not happen because of it being avoidable, you would nevertheless defend this individual's right to do such torture on the claimed basis that humans, including this individual, are the superior race among all life on Earth, and therefore all other animals have absolutely no rights?
Posted by Bocaj1000 1 year ago
Bocaj1000
A life is a life. Technically, there is no difference between animals and humans besides intelligence. An animal life is not worth less than a human life.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
bobby_clarckValansanoidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
bobby_clarckValansanoidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture
Vote Placed by jo021698j 1 year ago
jo021698j
bobby_clarckValansanoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with pro prior to conversation and was looking forward to a good debate. I had problems with both sides though. 1) Con did not participate in the debate even when he started off very organized and strong and probably would've won if he kept going. 2) Pro had a very biased argument that had no citations whatsoever. Pro also used multiple punctuations which is unacceptable in a debate, but nevertheless, still finished the debate, which puts a distinct advantage on his/her side. This debate could have been so much more, but the debaters did an overall poor job. Con didn't show up, and Pro didn't show Con up.