Animals should be given the same rights and protections as humans
Debate Rounds (4)
Sorry about the late reply, I'll start by outlining two small arguments for you to work off.
Firstly, animal rights is a prominent concern in today's society, there's no doubt about that. Humans do possess their own sense of morality and utilitarian views which makes us sympathize with cruelty that has been imposed on animals worldwide and so as I tackle this topic, I am not defending the belief that animals should have no rights at all, but clearly not equal rights, as there are clear fundemental differences and concerns that arise of affirming this topic, without further ado let's begin.
Contention 1 - It's an unrealistic ideal world
If god loved all of us equally, different species or otherwise, he would have seen to it that we were all vegan didn't have to live off the blood from one another. Simularily, to appeal people who follow Darwin's theory of evolution, would know that humans have descended from ancestors that span centuries and centuries ago who lived off eating meat, quite a few animals that were domesticated over this period of time became known as 'farm animals' which my opponent would obviously not approve of, seeing as she only supports them being pets. Granted, animal cruelty is a terrible issue, but going to the extent of giving them equal rights AND protections that humans have is an unnecessary solution for this problem which only creates problems more so, which would prevent it from ever being approved of from a majority of the public, why? Let's take a look.
A survey from inside the US stated that 32% of the public supported equal rights the same as humans, most of the majority, numbering 62% believed they needed 'some protection' believing that animals are 'still appropriate to be used for the benefit of humans'. [A]
I will defend this by stating that we have basic fundemental human rights that contradict this belief that animals should possess the same, namely that we have the right to 'life, liberty, and security of person'. All of this applies to why animals should not gain the equal rights status, it should not be forced onto the population something that would restrict their liberties for eating meat that comes from farm animals, that a majority still hold strong grounds to defend. Since we have to look out for our own well-being, we also require food. And food becomes INCREASINGLY scarce for people who are forced to not consume meat, and meat itself gives a lot of proteins and minerals that are mostly seen in a human's typical diet.
Contention 2 - Animals do not have a sense of morality nor an understanding of their duties that is the same as humans and humans should not be expected to have the same sense of morality towards them
My opponent will most obviously argue that humans exploit animals for their own benefits, and this is true, which is why a system was proposed in slaughterhouses that "humane" killing had to be placed upon farm animals that get killed for their meat, which is one of the reasons why we should negate this topic, as we should support the belief animals should have only some rights, but I will quickly tackle the most obvious attack that will be brought onto this contention by my opponent stating that this is not good enough.
Naturally, the conditions of slaughterhouses are in quite a few cases inhumane, [B] but what has to be realized is we as humans have different views on seeing what is considered humane and what isn't. A person working on the factories who cuts off chicken heads with a blade forcefully and quickly may consider the process to be quick and painless, while others, namely animal rights activists would consider it not to be. But for the animals themselves, the situation is a fairly different case. Animals may have a sense of what is 'right and wrong', but they will not have a different sense of duty if they were a pet or if they were a farm animal and hence having to give all animals the same rights of humans is entirely unnecessary as because for most of them that were domesticated specifically to be raised on farms will not find any fault or difference in their new lifestyles. And the person who treats his pet dog in a way he considers to be morale and caring can be seen as the same way the worker of a meat processing factory would feel when he chooses to execute the animal in a way he perceives to be painless.
So overall, the resolution should not be affirmed for this contention on the grounds that humans as a species do not share the same view or should be forced to share the same view about the merciful treatment of animals namely because animals themselves do not possess the same sense of thinking as humans do.
And finally, for my conclusion I will summarize in bullet point format every point I have brought forward in this debate thus far,
*Humans have been predominant meat eaters for centuries, which has grown to the extent where a vast majority of the public supports certain treatment of animals, notably farm animals.
*Humans have their own liberties which should not be taken away, namely the right to eat meat in order to fulfill their right to life, liberty and security.
*Despite the cruelty that has been gone through to process and receive meat, meat is still a vital part of typical diets that most people have in order to gain proteins, minerals, vitamins and fat.
*Unlike humans that have a differing opinion on what is humane and what isn't, animals do not have this same sense of morality wired in their minds nor do they have any sense of duty that they perceive to be right or wrong, namely being a pet or a farm animal.
*The measures to protect animals to a certain extent should be approved, but in a manner that would appeal to the majority and hence this resolution should be negated.
[A] - http://www.cbsnews.com...
[B] - http://www.salon.com...
EverlastingMoment forfeited this round.
I apologize once again for the forfeited round, however, I believe that this should not falter my argument in the least based on the response made by my opponent, let's break down the argument that she put forward that hardly covers anything I talked about.
"Humans are meat eater and even with in this premise I would not expect people to stop eating meat. However holding animals captive or butting them in horrible living conditions should be punishable by law."
As I did mention before, humans are indeed meat eaters and it's natural that most of them would require meat as my opponent has acknowledged. However, without having presented facts she instead switches to something that's completely subjective. 'Punishable by law'? Why so? It's quite obvious that all she has done up till now is assert her own opinion without even considering putting any sources in nor does she even give her own justification why it should necessarily be 'punishable by law' when a majority STILL eat meat and support the consumption of meat. And since she's against meat consumption what prevents anyone supporting meat by simply saying "It should be punishable by law for anyone to take away our basic human rights to eat meat". Notice how I have stated basic human rights come into play, she doesn't bother to address this at all and no further rebuttal is needed for this.
And voters should bear in mind for this FYI, that the only instances where consuming meat was 'punishable by law' was in certain parts in Asia, notably India, where the consumption of beef is banned because of religious opposition and this wasn't even because of the cruelty of animal captivity. Hence there are no other instances where it is punishable by law and voters should keep in mind that this makes her contention theoretical and not practical. [A]
"To protect the safety and dignity of the animals. The animals would not need to understand their duties in this because they would have no expected responsibilties."
I'm struggling to understand what dignity actually needs in this debate if my opponent is not going to prove the differentiation between them understanding their duties as farm animals and understanding their duties as pets. Once again, these responsibilities do not affect the animals in any way, it has been like that for decades and I have already answered your doubts about the safety of these animals as I have already proved that governments are already taking steps to ensure their protection, but these protection rights are not encompassing the same rights as humans.
"They would simply be allowed to remain free from obsessive human influence."
Granted, human influence can at some times be quite obsessive because of our requirements for animals, but here's the question, how is obsessive human influence necessarily a bad thing? We have maintained close relationships with all animals alike for centuries, perhaps my opponent is arguing how human influence forced some animals closer to extinction, but that's exactly what I agree on, protection measures are needed for those animals, but that doesn't mean we upgrade that to the SAME RIGHTS as humans, farm animals are in no way endangered, pigs, cows, chickens are all avaliable in vast quantities and there is no reason why same rights should be given to these animals at all.
So, I have provided a word-by-word breakdown of what my opponent has said, there is very little to write to address what she said because little to nothing is actually challenging what I was saying and she still sticks to her subjective assertions about how animals should be treated, my opponent really shouldn't have thrown round three away like that by stating that there were no new arguments to address when the irony is that she still has ALL my arguments to address and this is why her argument still lacks in both content, evidence and weight.
[A] - http://indianexpress.com...
sapere_aude forfeited this round.
Well, that concludes it, with all my points stated I have nothing else to add.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.