The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Animals are worth more

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 86802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Animals are being mistreated all over the USA and even though the focus on animal rights has increased, I believe there are still some big issues concerning animal rights.
The human race might have been created superior to animals. That does not give us the right to treat them like they are worth nothing. Animals do have moral, if there is a lack of moral it lies with the people who are being cruel to animals. Animals are not cruel to other animals the same way we are. Predators obviously live from killing and feeding on other animals because that is how they survive. Humans also to some extent live from meat but the difference is that we breed the animals for food and the animal does not live a normal life when they are bred. We keep them in an environment that is not natural for them. We keep them in overcrowded places where they are hurt because their needs are not fulfilled.
Some say that humans are more important than animals. I believe that animals are here for a reason the same way humans are, therefore they are equally worth. Obviously animals cannot have the same rights as humans because they are not as "intelligent" as us. Although they might be less intelligent they should still have the right to be treated fairly and have the right to live a nearly natural life.

The organization "World Animal Protection" found that there are benefits from animal rights concerning humans and the environment.
-Raising animals humanely can use less feed, fuel and water than intensive farming, reducing costs and pollution
-Humane farms can create jobs, boost profits and keep local food supplies healthy
-By farming crops and livestock, humane farms can reduce environmental damage recycling nutrients and improving the soil
-Greenhouse gas emissions are often reduced when animals are healthy and have good welfare.


Darwinism-1.the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
My opponent acknowledges that humans evolved superior to the other animals. My opponent argues that this does not give us the right to treat them like nothing. He claims that there should be laws and regulations that make it socially unacceptable for humans to manipulate animals to ways they see fit.
I will argue that humans have every right to manipulate animals to ways they see fit. I will argue first that there have been a number in incidences where animals do not care how humans feel. Than I will prove that the only reason why humans have thrived for so long is because of our manipulations of these inferior beings.

Animal Moral- This argument by far is the weakest. First of all, morality is an idea that humans made to keep stability and order. Animals do not have a clue of what this idea is, and will never understand what this idea is. The basic instinct of an animal is to survive. Humans have surpassed this need. Let's just say humans were forced to live in the jungle again. There is a chance that the smarter and stronger humans will survive, but the weaker more compassionate humans will die. Here is the reason why:
"Although wolf attacks do occur, their frequency varies with geographical location and historical period. Gray wolf attacks are dangerous not only for the victims, but for the wolves, who are often subsequently ended, or even extirpated in reaction. As a result, wolves today tend to live mostly far from people or have developed the tendency and ability to avoid them. The country with the most extensive historical records is France, where nearly 7,600 fatal attacks were documented from 1200"1920.[1] In modern times, they occur most often in India and neighboring countries. There are few historical records or modern cases of wolf attacks in North America. In the half-century up to 2002, there were eight fatal attacks in Europe and Russia, three in North America, and more than 200 in south Asia.[2] Experts categorize wolf attacks into various types, including rabies-infected, predatory, agonistic, and defensive."
7600 fatal attacks were documents from 1200-1920. Try compassion for these animals.
Couger(Lion, Panther, and Bob Cat attacks)
At least 20 people in North America were killed by cougars between 1890 and 2011, including six in California. More than two-thirds of the Canadian fatalities occurred on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Fatal cougar attacks are extremely rare and occur much less frequently than fatal dog attacks, fatal snake bites, fatal lightning strikes, or fatal bee stings.[citation needed] Children are particularly vulnerable. The majority of the child victims listed here were not accompanied by adults.
Here are ten murders by Snakes:
Canadian Boys while sleeping: The 2 boys were sleeping in an apartment that was above an exotic snake store. The owner had a python, and the python climbed up a series of vents. The python killed the 2 little boys.

Boa Constrictor Almost Kills Texas Woman: Luckily, her daughter called the cops.

Pet Python Turns on Owner in New York

Australian Mother Finds Snake in Bed with Daughter
As I have stated, animals do not really cling to the ideas of morality. A lot of deaths stated were killings of owners. Why would a snake kill its owner? Don't you think the owner and the snake would have bonded? One might be thinking these are stupid questions, because they are stupid questions. Animals are proven to be incapable of feeling the emotions compassionate people do.
Note(Animals kill animals too. I cannot provide statistics on how many animals kill animals per year, because it goes without saying. Animals survive off of eating other animals. My opponent cannot deny this truth.)

Wasted effort-Note(If animals are endangered, than they should be cared for because it benefits humans) What do you have to gain when you are caring for animals that are not endangered. Nothing. It is really pointless to continue an effort that has no use. Animals sub-consciously follow Darwinian laws that state:
1.water space
4.homeostasis ( stable internal conditions/environment)
If anything, people that start these organizations are doing more harm than good to animals. Animals have already found their place in the world. They live in jungles, forests, and deserts where they can survive. They don't need more protection.
Stop watching cartoons. Stop looking at apes, and contemplate on what personality they have. Stop trying to edit natural laws that suit your sympathy for animals that don't even need it. Stop being na"ve.
Debate Round No. 1


As my opponent points out that animals follow their instinct of survival and doesn't care about anything else. He also says that wolf attacks occurred a lot in some countries but that it has decreased. He mentions that they have developed the tendency to stay away from people, this means that they want nothing to do with humans. When the attacks occurs it's in the habitat of the wolf. A wolf doesn't go in to a city and attacks someone for fun. They attack or defend themselves if they feel threatened like every other animal and humans. Obviously they attack when we enter their territory and their home, so would we if someone entered our home and we felt threatened by them. Wolfs are pack animals, meaning that they live in groups of 5 - 11 wolfs. They are social animals, they live with their family and their mate and they hunt together as a group.
My opponent mentions that 7,600 fatal attacks happened over a period of 520 years, in the year of 1883 about 1,386 wolfs were killed from hunting or poison in Central Europe.

My opponent asks me why would a snake kill his owner?
A phyton can grow up to almost seven metres long. Keeping it in a small terrarium is not fair and it doesn't fulfill its natural needs, if it is a long phyton it cant even move properly. Therefore it might attack its owner it it feels trapped.
Not all animals are fit to be pets, if you keep a dangerous animal as pet you cant expect that it wont feel threatened.


The arguments that Pro has made has done nothing to defend the assertion that Animals are worth more.
My opponent already states that dangerous animals should not be kept in the apartment. But, the resolution clearly states that one must include all animals when arguing. Snakes, Lions, Mice, and Lizards all qualify as animals that under Pro's world should be "worth more".
Dropped Arguments:
Wasted Effort:
Pro has not provided any arguments that counter the Wasted effort argument. Pro has not answered what one has to gain for taking an extra step into caring for an animal. Pro has not countered any Darwinian law arguments which means he either concedes with this argument, or was just too pathetic to even answer it.
He also did not counter how when people start organizations, they actually end up doing more harm than good.
This is a link obviously written by someone who loves animals.
"There are simply very few zoos that practice relevant and reliable research. Those that do mainly examine the physiological structure of a captive animal, as well as the illnesses he or she has acquired. These results however, are obviously skewed towards animals living in captivity. They therefore generate little information about how to best conserve species in the wild. In their natural habitat, species develop immunities to naturally occurring illnesses. Zoo animals usually do not form resistance to the most ordinary of ailments and are more prone to catching viruses that they would never encounter in the wild. Moreover, living in captivity causes animals to lose their natural disposition to the extent that they become unrepresentative of their species. Therefore, studies of captive animals are of limited benefit to animals in the wild."
This is research of how much of a negative impact organizations that are intended to help animals have.

Animal Moral-Pro also did not answer this argument which means he either concedes with this argument, or was just to pathetic not to answer it. In this argument I state:
A. Animals have no clue what morality is.
B. Statistics on animals killing for their instinct for survival
You have not countered the idea that animals have no clue what morality is therefore making it more difficult to prove that animals are worth more.

Pro assumes that I believe that wolves go into cities to kill people for fun. Well, there is a problem with how you comprehend things, because the point I was making was Animals have no clue what morality is, and they have no clue what compassion is. Animals like wolves, snakes, lions, lizards, insects, and others all want to survive. You have done nothing to counter this.
Debate Round No. 2


When i mentioned the organization "World Animal Protection" i didn't refer to a zoo. This organization is trying to stop animal cruelty and they made a big difference by saving billions of animals. This can not be compared to a zoo, i do not believe in zoos. The purpose of a zoo is not to save animals, this organization saves animals and if it is not possible to release them in to nature, they release them in a big reservation where they can have a normal life.

As defense to your argument that animals do not have a clue about what morality is, I made some research and found that there has been made scientific research showing that they do have moral. Quote form the page "And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves."
There has been a lot of these situations where animals showed ability of morally behavior. This proves that animals do have the ability to act upon their feelings and not only acting from instinct of survival.

Animals kill other animals and sometimes humans as an act of survival. Predators live from killing other animals, that is the way of nature. When they kill a human it is because they feel threatened by the human or sees it as a prey. This is why we should not interfere with animals capable of killing us. We should let them have a normal life in the nature.
The animals that we do live together with like pets and farming animals, should be treated the best way possible. I belive that is by giving them a life where they do not suffer, they are treated with respect and they get as many as their natural needs fulfilled.


Well, you have to be clear on what you were talking about when you were saying "World Animal Protection". Either way, they seem to just want to put regulations on people that are not doing any harm whatsoever to other people. This effort is futile. because putting laws into place protecting Animals just makes life harder. It is a waste of time for tax money to go into defending animals that have no conscience of what morality is.

Morality Defense: Pro claims that animals actually do have morality, and they are sympathetic to there "friends". Too bad. monkeys do not represent every animal species there is. This a huge claim to make. Just because monkeys have an idea of morality, does not mean wolves, lions, snakes, and lizards have that idea. Monkeys and Apes are also the most intelligent of them all. We evolved from them. Pro has not shown clear reasoning why Apes should represent the whole animal kingdom, and should not have waited till round three to introduce new evidence.

"We should let them have a normal life in the nature."
We do not let them live a normal life, because all the food we eat comes from animals. Chickens, Pigs, Fish, and Cow all are animals that are not left alone. Humans use them to there advantage, because we are the dominant ones. Pro already admits that animals kill humans, because of fear. Humans also kill animals, because of fear. The main significant point is that this is a wasted effort. There is no real way to track down people that torture animals for fun. There is no real way to actually put laws that the government will actually take seriously. We all know the general reality that animal sympathizers do not care about. There is a difference between us and them. We are more intelligent than animals. Animals are manipulated and cared by humans. If there was a single equivalence to humans and animals, than why does Pro keep acting like there special needs children that need to be protected. Animals are not children. They are predators. I have proven that the great majority of animals do not know about the idea of morality. Animals in the end are not worth more. Humans can treat them anyway they want as long as it does not harm the human race.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mall 2 years ago
All con has proven is that being superior makes it correct to rule over . That's why there were laws to rule over other people . Like "white" supremacists over "nonwhite" people so it's fit to rule over. If the roles were reversed, and we were in the jungle , who would serve as master ruler? Con has not proven logically that one is more important than the other. Either side can vote for themselves as better due to simply belonging to that side. Morality is based on what and according to who? Again the roles can be reversed. The answer to this debate delves into the philosophical realm. Since we are not the creators of all existence including ourselves, all we have is our beliefs. Even morality and the dictation of laws can all be subjective. It's all the marjority that counts. However these beliefs could eventually or enevitably be revealed into some truths.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
my dog slaughters squirrels, birds and harasses skunks, deer, toads etc...

I think animals are very immoral. however, I agree. based on heretical traits of poor global culture..

I love animals though. breed deer before u eat them. give them their space. Feed them, grow wild crops just for them. Respect them when domesticating them, - don't expect unfair results from inhumane practices.

I'm with u on this one. but I wouldn't put animals much higher then the average Oaf.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by actionguy777 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, I should say that I was insanely biased in favor of Con. While Pro did make some good arguments and defended his/her points, Con was able to continue attacking those points and point out what was completely dropped by Con. While both sides used Wikipedia as a source, Con used a couple more sources, including some .org sources as opposed to Pro's .com sources.
Vote Placed by Assassin801x 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually had reasons and statistics to back up his arguments, while Pro heavily relied on emotion and opinion. Towards the end, he started citing actual evidence, but Con disproved it by saying how apes and monkeys do not represent every animal.