The Instigator
scgates
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mission42
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Animals deserve right recognition

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: 3/12/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,066 times Debate No: 21930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

scgates

Con

Rounds will commence as follows:
round 1: acceptance
round 2: constructive case
round 3: questions
round 4: rebuttal
round 5: crystallization
mission42

Pro

You can start...
Debate Round No. 1
scgates

Con

Ok this isn't my actual LD case (cant find it) so I'm going to improvise with what I remember.

Definition
Animal: any multicellular organism that belongs in the kingdom ANIMALIA.

Contention 1:Animals have no rights.
Both John Locke and Immanuel Kant state that the only beings that receive rights in society are those that can UNDERSTAND their rights. Animals have no capacity to understand such concepts. (Locke also states that infants and the mentally handicapped, however, because they can eventually understand their rights, and they are viewed as an extension of their caretakers. Therefore, there are no rights to be recognized.

I know it's short, but I believe that I have evidence enough to cover the rest of this round.
mission42

Pro

I will start by stating that your definition of "animal" completely includes humans into the animal category, therefore you are stating that humans have no rights.
Also, you gave no definition of the word "rights" therefore, I will give my own definition.

Right:
That which is morally, legally, or ethically proper.


"The only beings that receive rights in society are those that can UNDERSTAND their rights."

I do not dissagree that animals do not understand their rights, but that is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have any. Animals may not understand that they have rights, but they certainly understand that it is not pleasant to be abused. Animals are not taken care of well when they are put in cages or cramed into places by the thousands as they are being prepred for slaughter. So you might say "So what? hey're going to die anyway!" That's like saying about slavery " It's not wrong! Torchuring them while they're slaves is completely okay because they're going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter!" It completely matters! Animals are being abused and treated morally wrong for what? There is no reason that animals should be treated wrongly unless human lives depend on it. Now, I know that humans were put on the earth as higher in authority than animals, but that does not give us right to abuse them.

Animals have no capacity to understand such concepts.

True, but they are very confused and terrified when treated wrong. Take cattle for example. They are poked and prodded with sticks and put in very small spaces and shipped in trucks arely big enough to hod them, then slit by the throat at slaughter. Sounds pretty horrible to me.

So you say that animals don't deserve rights because they don't know what rights are? That is a week argument.

I would also like to point out that my opponent has given no sources for his argument.

Sources:
http://www.peta.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 2
scgates

Con

scgates forfeited this round.
mission42

Pro

mission42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
scgates

Con

scgates forfeited this round.
mission42

Pro

mission42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
scgates

Con

scgates forfeited this round.
mission42

Pro

mission42 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by scgates 5 years ago
scgates
can we post evidence in later rounds, as long as the opponent can respond?
Posted by scgates 5 years ago
scgates
sorry cant find my old ld case, might take me a bit to get a new one up. but i will, don't worry
Posted by scgates 5 years ago
scgates
it is basically the sep/oct ld resolution yes. definition of rights is left up to each opponent
Posted by mission42 5 years ago
mission42
Sorry D: Looked interesting...
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Dang. I would've loved to debate this.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
It's similar indeed Zaradi. How are you defining rights scgates?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Is this similar to the Sept/Oct LD Resolution
(Justice requires the recognition of Animal Rights)?
If so, then I might accept.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
What exactly is this debate about?
No votes have been placed for this debate.