The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 74801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

kasmic

Pro

This is round two in the April Gauntlet Tower (1) that Mikal helped me set up in response to the trial by fire thread.(2)

Kasmic vs Zaradi

Resolved: "Just Societies Ought to Recognize Animal Rights"

4 rounds/72hrs/10,000 Characters

Select Winner/2500 Elo voting restiction.


Typical rules......


(1) http://www.debate.org...


(2)http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you Zaradi for this debate and good luck.

A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

It is my burden in this debate to show that animals have rights. If it can be shown that animal rights do exist it seems to me to follow that a just society ought to recognize them. Thus if I can show Animal Rights exist, I win this debate.

C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights

Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. From this we can conclude that the existence of rights is not impacted by these types of differences and are thus inherent. Certain rights exist independent of human differences. It seems reasonable to accept that all animals, human or not, inherently have rights despite differences. They ought to be respected.

Unless my opponent can show reasonable argumentation as to why humans, of all animals, inherently have rights for a reason not applicable to other animals then it follows that all animals have rights.

P1. Humans have rights
P2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etc
P3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights
C. Animals have rights

C2: Needless Suffering

To be free from needless suffering is perhaps the most fundamental right. If something is capable of needlessly suffering, inherently there exists a right to not be subject to such suffering. This leads us with one simple question. Can Animals suffer? The general consensus is that some animals do in fact feel pain. Many governments around the world recognize this truth and have in response passed regulations that minimize or eliminate such pain.

For example the U.S. Government has such regulations. “The requirement or recommendation to consider the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals when conducting research in the United States is constituted in federal law, regulations, and guidelines, enforced by the US Public Health Service Policy, and promulgated by various professional organizations”(1)

If we accept, as most do that animals are capable of needlessly suffering, then it follows that a just society would not allow such animals to suffer needlessly.

P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental right
P2: Animals are capable of suffering
C2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer

Conclusion

Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U.S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed.

(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Zaradi

Con

I negate. Desire in its natural form is uncontrolled, creative, free flowing production. When society constructs itself it begins to code desire to condition people to think in terms of static end objects. While it seems intuitive to say we will naturally desire things, psychoanalysis takes it a step further to condition people on what is proper to desire.

--- Section 1: desire as lack. Links and impacts. ---

The aff case envokes the conception of what normativity requires. They talk about all the different reasons why animals aren't different from humans and how they needlessly suffer and why this requires and mandates rights. This is problematic because requirements suppress desire to a set code of what justice lacks rather than an on going flow of production that doesn’t stop. Lack is actually anti-production. Denying this conditions leaves humans in a vaccoulized state and allows fascism to replicate. Deleuze and Guattari write:

Anti-Oedipus: pg. 26-29. Gilles and Felix

  • "If desire produces, its product is real. ... Desire is the set of passive synthesis that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production. ...Desire does not lack anything; … . It is, rather, ... desire that lacks a fixed subject; there is no fixed subject unless there is repression. ...Desire is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. Hence the product is something removed or deducted from the process of producing: between the act of producing and the product, something becomes detached, thus giving the ... subject a residuum. ... what exists in fact is not lack, but passion, as a "natural and sensuous object." Desire is not bolstered by needs, ... needs are derived from desire: they are counterproducts within the real that desire produces. Lack is a countereffect of desire; it is deposited, distributed, vacuolized within a real that is natural and social. ...that what is missing is not things a subject feels the lack of somewhere deep down inside himself, but rather the objectivity of man, the objective being of man, for whom to desire is to produce, to produce within the realm of the real. ... Desire does not express a molar lack within the subject; rather, the molar organization deprives desire of its objective being. ... Lack is created, planned, and organized in and through social production. It is counterproduced as a result of the pressure of antiproduction;the latter falls back on the forces of production and appropriates them. ...The deliberate creation of lack as a function of market economy is the art of a dominant class. This involves deliberately organizing wants and needs amid an abundance of production; making all of desire teeter and fall victim to the great fear of not having one's needs satisfied; and making the object dependent upon a real production that is supposedly exterior to desire ... while at the same time the production of desire is categorized as fantasy and nothing but fantasy. ... We maintain that the social field is immediately invested by desire, that it is the historically determined product of desire, and that libido has no need of any mediation or sublimation, any psychic operation, any transformation, in order to invade and invest the productive forces and the relations of production. There is only desire and the social, and nothing else."

Thus the affirmative’s lack-based framework is a problematic because its based on a flawed conception of desire. The AFF vaccoulizes people into only being valuable because they have objects or want things. This negates value in life because people are no longer intrinsically valuable but rather instruments to the socius. And this outweighs because it won’t matter if animals are the same as humans if humans have no value to their rights in the first place. Additionally the AFF becomes a perpetual cycle because by continuing the very root of the problems the AFF does nothing to “solve” but rather increases the very problems we have.

--- SECTION 2: schizoanalysis. ---



The alternative is to embrace the schizophrenic and unknown. We need to reject the affirmative’s methodology and move away from their molar paradigm. The revolution cannot come from the treaties signed or terrorists killed but rather through a reconceptualization of desire. D&G 2:

  • “The ... thesis of schizoanalysis is therefore the distinction between two poles of social libidinal investment: the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole. ... The two poles are defined, the one by the enslavement of production and the desiring-machines to the gregarious aggregates that they constitute on a large scale under a given form of power or selective sovereignty; the other h8579;by the inverse subordination and the overthrow of power the one by these molar structured aggregates that crush singularities, select them, and regularize those that they retain in codes or axiomatics; the other by the molecular multiplicities of singularities that on the contrary treat the large aggregates as so many useful materials for their own elaborations the one by the lines of integration and territorialization that arrest the flows, constrict them, turn them back, break them again according to the limits interior to the system, in such a way as to produce the images that come to fill the field of immanence peculiar to this system or this aggregate, the other by lines of escape that follow the decoded and deterritorialized flows, inventing their own nonfigurative breaks ... that produce new flows, always breaching the coded wall or the territorialized limit that separates them from desiring-production. ... the one is defined by subjugated groups the other by subject-groups. ... The fact remains that such an investment does not endure the light of day: it must always hide under assignable aims or interests presented as the general aims and interests, even though in reality the latter represent only the members of the dominant class or a fraction of this class. ... Even the most overt fascism speaks the language of goals, of law, order, and reason.”

Now the affirmative is going to stand up and say “I don’t know what shizo is” or “that won’t work” but perhaps that is the very point. I’m endorsing the freedom possible now by abandoning self-repression for as long as possible. Politics begins and ends with desire and fascism only by analyzing the K can we solve. Deleuze and Guattari 3:

Deleuze and Guattari 1980 (A Thousand Plateaus 214-215)
  • “fascism implies a molecular regime that is distinct both from molar segments and their centralization. ... fascism invented the concept of the totalitarian State, ... The concept of the totalitarian State applies only at the macropolitical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode of totalization and centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of molecular focuses in interaction, ... fascism is defined by a micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates with the others, ... What makes fascism dangerous is its molecular or micropolitical power, for it is a mass movement: a cancerous body rather than a totalitarian organism. ... Only microfascism provides an answer to the global question: Why does desire desire its own repression, how can it desire its own repression? ... Desire is never separable from complex assemblages that necessarily tie into molecular levels, from microformations already shaping postures, attitudes, perceptions, ... Desire is never an undifferentiated instinctual energy, but itself results from a highly developed, engineered setup rich in interactions: a whole supple segmentarity that processes molecular energies and potentially gives desire a fascist determination. ... It's too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you, the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both personal and collective.”

Thus fascism must be opposed on the micro level. And the Kritik is sufficient to negate because:


You negate pre-fiat because every endorsement of schizoanalysis is a step close to recognizing inner freedom. Remember it’s not about whole scale change but about recognizing the fascist within all of us.

Negate pre-standard because I’ve disproven that the affirmative’s conception of justice is fundamentally flawed. Method comes before conclusion because the way we reach a conclusion is fundamentally dependent on the warrant we use to get there. So even if they win that animal rights is consistent with justice the method they use to get that conclusion should be rejected.

Negate post-fiat because the kritik turns the AFF case by showing that their method of justice creates fascism and prevents the true possibility rights and justice can have.

As a re-explanation of the K:

The links say desire is traditionally understood as wanting a real object. This is is perpetuated by the aff’s mindset of requirement and the AC specific links I’ve pointed out. This is a problematic understanding of desire because we become empty vessels only chasing after object after object. This wanting of desire makes people controlled and potential destroyed. This has two impacts a) the aff negates value in life by vaccoulizing people and b) they create the very problems that they attempt to “solve” and allow fascism to replicate itself.

Finally, the alternative is to reunderstand desire through what the K calls schizoanaylysis. Under this paradigm we choose desire as the creation of experiences and reinvest desire not in what we want to have but in what we can create and experience. The alt solves on both a pre-fiat and post-fiat level.

Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

I had a crazy weekend, I had an online test for school, children sick, mothers day, and made an offer on a house.... For these reasons this round is what I could throw together this morning, I apologize to Zaradi for not putting more time into this round.


Con says "The aff case envokes the conception of what normativity requires. " Yes this is true as this is a debate about what "ought" be it is naturally based on what normativity requires.


Con argues that my case "negates value in life because people are no longer intrinsically valuable but rather instruments to the socius."


Quite the contrary. I argued that rights are inherient, implying that life is intrinsically valuable.


He goes on to say "And this outweighs because it won’t matter if animals are the same as humans if humans have no value to their rights in the first place."


Again I do argue a human life intrisically valuable due to rights. Thus animals having the same rights inheriently have value. Such rights should be respected.


It seems my opponent is arguing that rights are not inherient in people, though does not substantiate this claim.


Con says "Politics begins and ends with desire and fascism only by analyzing the K can we solve."


My opponent is painting an extreme picture here. It is in fact the recongintion of rights and the respect of such rights that invalidates fascism, not the other way around. By acknologing the rights of people and animals it follows that abusing those rights or restricting them is inmorral. That is what fascism is... a violation of the inherient right of freedom.

Again I apologize for this last min attempt at a response... back to con.
Zaradi

Con

So the biggest problem in my opponent’s last round is that he vastly undercovers and miscovers the K. He picks out specific sentences from taglines to reply to without actually responding to the warrants coming from my arguments and, therefore, doesn’t actually end up replying to my arguments. But first, let’s go for a little substance debate. Time for refutations!


Let’s start on this idea that there’s no real differences between humans and animals. This is true in a lot of situations, but not true in the most important way that pertains to rights -- only humans can engage in moral reasoning. Cohen writes:

Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October 1986, pp. 865–870.

  • “Between species ... humans on the one hand and cats or rats on the other--the morally relevant differences are enormous, and almost universally appreciated. Humans engage in moral reflection; ... are morally autonomous; ... are members of moral communities, recognizing just claims against their own interest. Human beings do have rights; theirs is a moral status very different from that of cats or rats”

And this is critical because the bestowing of rights isn’t based on things like being able to feel or communicate, but rather on an ability to grasp ethical premises. Since animals are incapable of doing that, they are unworthy of rights. Cohen continues:


  • “Patterns of conduct are not at issue. Animals do ... exhibit remarkable behavior at times. Conditioning, fear, instinct, and intelligence all contribute to species survival. Membership in a community of moral agents nevertheless remains impossible for them. Actors subject to moral judgment must be capable of grasping the generality of an ethical premise in a practical syllogism. Humans act immorally often enough, but only they … can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to he performed. The moral restraints imposed by humans on themselves are thus highly abstract and are often in conflict with the self-interest of the agent. Communal behavior among animals, ... does not approach autonomous morality in this fundamental sense. Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an .external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed, ... is done with a guilty mind, …”

But let’s go to his suffering argument, being that because animals can suffer and that suffering is wrong, that they ought to have a right to not pointlessly suffer.


To begin with, my opponent never makes any attempt to define what “needless” is. How exactly can we define what needless is? If I need to put animals through the cruelest and most horrible slaughterhouses in order to ensure the continued survival of the human race, would the suffering of the animals really be needless? Or would there be a need for their suffering? The only way to possibly weigh this argument would be under some sort of utilitarian framework.


But this framework is wrought with problems, specifically problems that negatively affect animals. For one, adopting a utilitarian mindset opens the possibility for animals to be ignored, even as utilitarians call for their suffering to end. Nussbaum explains:

The Moral Status of Animals. By: Nussbaum, Martha C [Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago],., Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 2/3/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 22


  • “One ... problem concerns the Utilitarian commitment to aggregation: that is, to summing together all pleasures and pains. The choice maker is instructed to produce the largest total ... pleasure. That can allow results in which a small number of creatures have very miserable lives, so long as their miseries are compensated for by a great deal of pleasure elsewhere. ... It remains unclear whether such a view can really rule out the cruel treatment of at least some animals, which undoubtedly causes great pleasure to a very large number of meat eaters, or the infliction of pain on small numbers of animals in laboratory testing in order to provide benefits for many humans. …”

Because of this, it’s really hard to look at needless suffering as a reason to recognize rights.


And, these arguments are sufficient to negate because the Aff has no contentional offense to extend out as a reason to affirm the resolution. Not only is the K still sufficiently refuting his case and turning offense for the negative, but I’m turning offense off of Nussbaum showing how the Aff’s call for the reduction of animal suffering only opens animals up to further exploitation. This means that even if the K debate went over your head and you just have no idea what to do about it, you can still negate off of Nussbaum and the lack of offense coming from the affirmative.



But let’s look at the K debate again. I’ll make it crystal clear exactly what the K is talking about. The links say desire is traditionally understood as wanting a real object, in this case it’s wanting rights for animals. This is is perpetuated by the aff’s mindset of requirement, meaning that, according to his case, our societies are required and ought to recognize animal’s rights, which perpetuates this understanding of desire. This is a problematic understanding of desire because we become empty vessels only chasing after each and every desire, before going on to the next desire, and the next desire, and then the next indefinitely. This wanting of desire makes people controlled in our actions and our wants and human potential is destroyed, which invalidates what makes us human, thus invalidating the value to life. This has two impacts a) the aff negates value in life by vaccoulizing people and b) they create the very problems that they attempt to “solve” and allow fascism to replicate itself, meaning that our actions and wants become controlled in our attempt to continually chase after desire. The alternative is to reunderstand desire through what the K calls schizoanalysis. Under this paradigm we choose desire as the creation of experiences and reinvest desire not in what we want to have but in what we can create and experience.


The biggest problems in my opponent’s refutations is that he never really actually addresses the warrants coming out of my arguments. All he really does is reiterate the same points from his case that my case rejects without ever really addressing the K. The K has nothing to do with rejecting inherent human rights, rather says that our desire to reify rights in animals is a chasing of desiring something we lack, which perpetuates the harms of the K. The only way out of this is to reunderstand desire via schizoanalysis. All of this goes through without a response.


This makes the debate really simple to understand. The K rejects his desire for a lack of animal rights, and isn’t responded to in anything close to a sufficient manner. You can negate off of it. Even if you don’t like the K, though, you can look to the substance responses against the affirmative and negate off of the turn to his suffering argument. He doesn’t have any kind of offense because animals aren’t the same as humans in understanding moral principles and grasping ethical premises, meaning that we can’t extend to them rights. Considering their suffering as a reason to afford them rights opens themselves up to even more persecution via the very utilitarian system it tries to utilize.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Thanks Zaradi for an interesting debate.

Summary of my arguments:

C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights

Con claims “that the bestowing of rights isn’t based on things like being able to feel or communicate, but rather on an ability to grasp ethical premises. Since animals are incapable of doing that, they are unworthy of rights.”
This contention misses the mark as I have already addressed this stating in my initial argument that Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. This includes infants and the mentally handicapped who may not have the ability to grasp ethical premises. Thus we see that even people unable to grasp ethical
premises are still worthy of rights. This entirely disconnecting the concept of rights from the ability to grasp ethics.

This was con’s only rebuttal to this argument and as it has been found lacking this argument stands.

C2: Needless Suffering

Con claims “To begin with, my opponent never makes any attempt to define what “needless” is. How exactly can we define what needless is? If I need to put animals through the cruelest and most horrible slaughterhouses in order to ensure the continued survival of the human race, would the suffering of the animals really be needless? Or would there be a need for their suffering?”
To accept con’s rebuttal here is to accept that any kind of animal suffering is morally justifiable. His hypothetical is a very specific
example, how about people who abuse their pets for enjoyment, surely my opponent would not endorse such an action as moral. Why, because clearly it is a violation of the animals inherent right not to suffer needlessly. Needless is a simplistic word synonymous with unnecessary. Surely this semantical argument does not negate the obvious moral obligation to not harm animals needlessly. Clearly animals have a right to not needlessly suffer.

The K:

the only way I can lose this debate is if voters buy into the K. To those tempted to do so I refer you to round 1 rules. “typical rules.” It is common courtesy as well as often listed among typical rules of a debate “No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) For example (http://www.debate.org...)
I confess I did not type this rule out in round one, though I did say typical rules which “no k’s of the topic” is a typical rule.

Conclusion:

It has become clear that both of my initial contentions stand.

P1. Humans have rights
P2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etc
P3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights
C. Animals have rights

P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental right
P2: Animals are capable of suffering
C2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer

Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U.S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro.
Zaradi

Con

So this debate is a fairly simple debate to evaluate since I'm winning on all levels of the debate. But let's start with the Aff side of things.

Extend out my refutation to his first contention. Animals are incapable of grasping moral principles and, because this is necessary for the endowment of rights, they are incapable of having rights. His only response to this is that this argument excludes infants and the mentally challenged, who we typically believe of having rights. But there's two responses to this:

First, there's three key distinctions between infants and the mentally challenged that entitles them rights that animals don't not have. Frey writes:

R. G. Frey. Animal Rights.Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun., 1977), pp. 186-189. Oxford University.
  • "to include the baby by means of the potentialityargument: the baby is potentially rational....to include the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the similarity argument: in all other respects except rationality and perhaps certain mental accomplishments, the severely mentally-enfeebled betray strong similarities to other members of our species,...One might try to include both babies and the severelymentally-enfeebledby means of the religious argument: babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled possess immortal souls....the religious argument does separate both from Fido, who is not conceded an immortal soul by the argument's proponents."
So there's still plenty of ways that infants and the mentally challenged are deserving of rights that animals lack.

Second, even if he's right in that I'm excluding infants and the mentally challenged, his argument doesn't actually refute mine here. By saying that I exclude infants and the mentally challenged, he doesn't provide any kind of analysis for why animals are deserving of rights. I could simply just concede that infants and the mentally challenged don't have rights and his argument would still fall.

This means my responses to his first contention still stand. You can't look to it for aff offense.

Extend my two-part refutation to his second contention as well. First, the resolution doesn't actually give us any kind of guideline for what is "needless suffering" and my opponent makes no effort to try and clarify this. Without any kind of guideline for what's needless and what isn't needless, it becomes impossible to actually prevent any kind of suffering because any infliction of suffering could always be worthwhile to have done. Even if we're causing suffering to tens of thousands of animals, if we get the cure to cancer and/or AIDs from it, would the animals suffering not be worthwhile?

His only response to this part is that my hypothetical is hyper specific that wouldn't really be called moral in the first place, but animal testing for medical reasons is a very real thing. And his whole semantics point misses what my argument is actually saying. You can call it "needless" or "unnecessary", but he's still not giving you any kind of brightline for what is necessary suffering and what isn't necessary suffering.

Second, extend that under this arguments utilitarian logic, we open animals up to the exclusion of their "rights" if it's in the greater good of society. He's not actually protecting animals with this argument. And he makes no resonse to this argument at all, so there's no way he can get any kind of offense from his second contention.

So because of this, there's literally nowhere that the aff can get any kind of offense to affirm the resolution. And I'm making offensive turns off of his arguments, mainly that his second argument only hurts animals more, so you can negate off of his case.

But let's go to the K now.

The only response he makes to the K now is that by running the K I violated the round one rules of the "typical rules".

First, if this was actually true, he wouldn't have waited to the very last round to bring it up. This is just him trying to rule-shark his way out of having to respond to something he doesn't understand.

Second, this "No Kritiks" rule isn't even a typical rule. Out of the 18 debates in the challenge period currently as of this moment ( http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
), NONE OF THEM have this rule.


Too small of a sample size? Out of the 282 debates currently in the debating period, only NINE DEBATES have a "No kritiks" ruling to them
( http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
). I would hardly call 3% of all the active debates going on right now a "typical rule".


Moreover, I find this debate highly ironic (http://www.debate.org...). Is the rule really so typical that you...don't...actually use it....in your own debate....?


So let's wrap this up real fast.

1. The K still stands and refutes the aff case. You can vote off of it rather easily.
2. Even if you don't buy the K, I'm making offensive turns off of the aff case, so you can negate there.
3. The aff isn't winning on a single front in this debate, which means there's literally no place for you to negate this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Everytime I look at this debate I feel a sense of shame. You should have won this hands down.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Darn, I missed this in the voting period, I wanted to vote ....
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
wow... I forgot about this...
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
As always thanks for the feedback Whiteflame!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

This is pretty straightforward, so I'm just going to go through the major points.

The Kritik is reason enough for me to vote Con on its own. If Pro wishes, he can contact me and we can discuss how best to respond to a Kritik of this nature. However, in this case, Pro failed to make any headway with his responses. This may be the result of extremely limited time in his R3, but he still needed to do something about this point, since it's the basis for most of Con's argumentation. Con presents all of the necessary pieces of a Kritik, giving me an alternative that... I have reservations about... but I can't dismiss. He gives me the voters I need to see, and dominates this argument on the whole. If I'm buying that Pro is effectively making humans empty vessels, devoid of value. I'm not particularly convinced on the links to that impact, but I don't need to be since Pro doesn't give me a basis for disbelief.

So I vote on the Kritik. The vote is pre-fiat, so I don't even have to look at the case. Its impacts are also the only clearly articulated ones in the debate, so I could vote here post-fiat. The case itself doesn't give me any reason to vote for Pro either, though. Con's rebuttals all stand pretty strongly, as I think he fully explains why animals are different from humans and why those differences can be enforced without any obvious harm. Pro really had to provide some reasoning as to why infants and the mentally challenged being denied rights is harmful. That might seem obvious, but it must be said, otherwise it's just an appeal to emotion. The turn on needless suffering also stands, though I wouldn't call it much in the way of offense " is it worse to deny all rights, or deny them when convenient? All the same, Con does enough to make me question how needless suffering should be defined, and therefore the basis for this whole contention is thrown into chaos. Without that clarity, this contention can't stand.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'm working on this now, guys. Should have a vote up tomorrow.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
*facepalm* ...
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
Man...you're really going to make me look through all the active debates right now to prove that the "No K's" rule isn't a typical rule... T_T
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
Dude, cmon. Just answer the K....don't wait to the last round to try and ruleshark out of it...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
kasmicZaradi
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
kasmicZaradi
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty short debate, sadly. I would have liked to read more. First, I'd like to explain as to why I believe Pro won this debate. He made a good and strong argument that "Can Animals suffer?" He clearly distinguishes the fact that humans have rights, they shouldn't suffer. Suffering is inhumane, thus making animals suffer is inhumane. Therefor, based on R1 with Pro's needlessly suffer argument won the whole debate for me. Pro also gave the argument that "Humans shouldn't be able to suffer, animals shouldn't be a human or not, inherently have rights despite differencesble to suffer" basically meaning, no matter what your age, size or color, you have a right, those rights are respected, so animals then should have rights as well. I wasn't to clear on Con's argument about desire, like what was he trying to say, animals desire to be harmed and be treated inhumanely? Also in R2, con seemed to have not rebutted any of Pro's points, which was most important. S&G tied, well done.