The Instigator
Mattmdb
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Conservation for all animals.

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 1 vote the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 24578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Mattmdb

Pro

We most of all should realize that earth was not meant to be ours but instead a turn of events made us be here.
Every living being who habitat's earth is unique and special. We are not special in who we are but how we think. If we think with this so called reason we would realize that being selfish is not only denying your help to society but to the other species that habitat this world. It is such selfishness that we do not care if they are endangered. WE JUST CARE ABOUT NOT MAKING IT EXTINCT. Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals. We once looked like one. Humans are special but stop being when we spread like a disease or virus eliminating every other different being in earth, by reducing their habitat destroying natural regions such as forests, jungles only to care about our own we should leave the animals with space of their own expanding and creating new natural reserves. You may have the need to destroy because we are so many but that is a different topic. we are no more worth than we think they are.
We seldom care about them so we should space time for them.
InVinoVeritas

Con

(NOTE: Throughout this debate, non-human animals will simply be referred to as "animals," while homo sapien sapiens will be referred to as "humans.")

Opponent Premise 1: "Every living being who [sic] habitat's [sic] earth is unique and special."

(Definitions:
Unique: (n) existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics
Special: (n) of a distinct or particular kind or character
[First definitions, respectively, on dictionary.com]
)

So, let us accept this as a valid premise.

Opponent Premise 2: "We are not special in who we are but how we think."

The human thought processing mechanism can be considered a part of who we are. This is a very vague statement. What defines "who are are"? This wasn't clarified.

"If we think with this so called reason we would realize that being selfish is not only denying your help to society but to the other species that habitat this world."

Well, selfishness does not necessarily deny help to society, since an individual is part of society. Furthermore, a person with selfish motives can, without a doubt, contribute to (i.e., help) society. But okay, sure... The opponent explained what "selfishness" means.

Note that the opponent did not really prove that selfishness is inherently bad.

"Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals."

And this is the key problem with the opponent's argument (or rant.) This claim is built off of the unproven premise that animals and humans are equally valuable. The opponent never substantiates his seemingly arbitrary value system that he uses to uphold his argument.

"Animals should have the same rights as humans because they are just as valuable as we are, we belong the same, we are different from animals. We once looked like one. Humans are special but stop being when we spread like a disease or virus eliminating every other different being in earth, by reducing their habitat destroying natural regions such as forests, jungles only to care about our own we should leave the animals with space of their own expanding and creating new natural reserves."

This part of the opponent's argument really perplexes me. It does not justify the claim that humans and animals are equally valuable or have the same rights. Humans evolved from non-human animals, yes--but who implied that the non-human animals that humans evolved from had the same value as modern-day humans?

And then the opponent seems to claim that humans stop being "special" when adversely affect animals. Based on my prior definition of "special" (or any formal definition, for that matter), I do not see how that precludes humanity from being special, or unique.

---

In conclusion, the opponent's rant is built on the premise that humans and animals should have the same rights and should be valued equally. This claim is not substantiated, and therefore, the opponent has not met his burden of proof.

As an aside (just for kicks), since animals should have the "same rights" as humans, should snails be allowed to vote in elections?







Debate Round No. 1
Mattmdb

Pro

Very well, who are we. When we logic and reason we are superior intellectual beings. For that reason we are dangerous. We over think the situations and create new conflicts that shouldn't have existed for example: Creating the politics that with the sucession of time becomes corrupt.
We are in fact different from the animals but in many ways we still act as them.
Reproduction: Mainly its primary objective is "Survival of the species". Animals do this a we humans do. But still we cant control our number. Their is not a worldwide birth control so we simply keep growing. If a certain animal had everything he needed he would increase vastly in number and if they had a whole continent to themselves they would fill it as we do, which is bad when there is so many.Food shortage comes with violence and many other problems.We now know that in this aspect we are the same to them and by not being able to control it, (because of politics and other factors) we show no special attributes of us humans in this case. As a consequence while we increase more homes are required to be built and nature has to be swiped out to become a human colony, while animals have less space and have the need to migrate to even more desolate regions(most important factor).Not a good idea at all.
With that I explain a part of who we are.(Society could work with less people now that new systems of life exsit. Life is better than befor but how could it be with less persons.There would be more resources and opportunities to us and the animals.)
Yes we are part of a society as you say. As a swarm of animals are part of a flock. If a person does not help to contribute in small tasks such as recycling then no one cares what he did. So all the residual plastic or other bad wastes burn (Not always but in many cases yes) The atmosphere is affected and the North and South Poles Melt to an unnormal heat. Its still happening, so that shows an act of careless selfishness because simply it doesn't seem to affect him. In the other animal society everyone is doing something. They mainly help themselves but through and act of unconsciousness are also helping their group. They do not feel weakness when doing a task, they simply do it, something we do not do but instead think if we should do it. That also makes them less selfish than we are. An animal takes what it needs for himself, a human takes everything he can get from them until they are nearly extinct.
I could have made an misunderstanding in the rights value. Better consider life rights.
If one person kills another person that is a 1st degree crime, but if a human kills an animal(Tiger) its still illegal but it has less strike.(Same justice for death) of course if an animal kills a human its because the person did something he was not meant to do.
An infant has the right to eat because he cannot find his own. An animal can find his own but thanks to us every time is harder so they should have the same opportunities of finding food as we have our own portions.(Same food distribution).
So I am saying that life rights apply.
InVinoVeritas

Con

"When we logic and reason we are superior intellectual beings. For that reason we are dangerous."

"Superiority" is arbitrary and is not the right word here. Also, I do not see how the ability of using logic and reason causes one to be dangerous, as opposed to one who cannot. This remains unproven.

"As a consequence while we increase more homes are required to be built and nature has to be swiped out to become a human colony, while animals have less space and have the need to migrate to even more desolate regions(most important factor).Not a good idea at all."

Why isn't it a good idea?

"Its still happening, so that shows an act of careless selfishness because simply it doesn't seem to affect him. In the other animal society everyone is doing something. They mainly help themselves but through and act of unconsciousness are also helping their group. They do not feel weakness when doing a task, they simply do it, something we do not do but instead think if we should do it. "

And the point is...?

"An animal takes what it needs for himself, a human takes everything he can get from them until they are nearly extinct."

If we were to assume that this is true, what conclusion do you infer from this!? The actual objective of the rant isn't clear at all.

"If one person kills another person that is a 1st degree crime, but if a human kills an animal(Tiger) its still illegal but it has less strike.(Same justice for death) of course if an animal kills a human its because the person did something he was not meant to do. An infant has the right to eat because he cannot find his own. An animal can find his own but thanks to us every time is harder so they should have the same opportunities of finding food as we have our own portions.(Same food distribution). So I am saying that life rights apply."

Okay. There is no argument being made here. I don't get it. So do you think that the killing of an animal should be punished equally to the killing a human? What are these "life rights" based on? Where are you getting this from?

---

My opponent is ranting and isn't really forming a uniform argument... Uhh.



Debate Round No. 2
Mattmdb

Pro

Mattmdb forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Con

This opponent never actually established a concrete argument. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ldcon 5 years ago
ldcon
MattmdbInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: FF