Persuasive Debate: Animal Rights
Full Resolution; Persuasive Speech Debate Writing Format: Animal Rights
I thank my opponent missbailey for doing this with me, and I thank Rosalie which made this program. This is a persuasive speech debate, no BoP, no rebuttals, just your arguments to convice the voters and persuade why your side is right.
The program is here: http://www.debate.org...
The strucutre is very important. There will be two rounds, with 10,000 characters each, and we only make our arguments in the second round. If anyone rebuts their opponent's arguments, it does not follow the tourney, and the rules, so they lose. So, you have to follow the strucutre very very very carefully. There are two ways, I will make my opponent decide which way is the better way for him/her.
a. First way
1. Con makes rules/ Pro accepts
2. Con and Pro make arguments, no rebuttals
b. Second way
1. Con makes rules/ Pro agrees, accepts, makes arguments
2. Con only makes arguments/ Pro waives. If you do anything else, you lose.
I will let my opponent decide on what strucutre, I am fine with both.
My rules will combine with the structure
1. Forfeiture when having to make arguments is a loss
2. No trolling
3. No rebuttals
4. No K's
5. No semantics
6. No source wars (over 40 sources)
7. No quiting
If my opponent disagrees, then we will change them.
Animal: a living thing that is not a human being or plant
Rights: morally or socially correct or acceptable
The definitons are from Merriam Webster. It is a very high-quality dictionary.
I thank my opponent missbailey, Rosalie for making this program, and hope to have fun. Thanks! :)
I accept the debate and all the rules and definitions given by my opponent, fire_wings'. I'd like to go by the structure A. fire has created. To clarify, here's the structure:
A. First way
1. Con makes rules/ Pro accepts
2. Con and Pro make arguments, no rebuttals
Thank you to fire and Rosalie for creating the tournament. I look forward to my opponent's arguments against animal rights.
I will be making arguments about Utilitarianism, endangered animals. Now, why am I arguing for no animal rights? Because this animals should not be in zoos debates are exact debates of animal rights, if animals have rights they should not be in zoos, if they do not have rights, they should be in cages.
My framework will be centered around Utilitarianism. If it helps more than if it does not help, we do it. Not like the harm principle if it harms one person, we stop, but this is if it better for everyone than worse, we do it.
Argument 1: Utilitarianism
What is the definiton Utilitarianism? It is this.
Utilitarianism: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people
This basically means that if there are more good things than bad things, more benefits than diadvantages, they do it.
Okay so, what are the good things of animals not having rights, and animals in zoos
1. We can have animal testing, because animal testing is very important for us humans to have cures, medical issues, much more. This research has saved many lives, even animal lives, also humans. , , , 
2. Humans eat. We need protein. Also meat and seafood are good. If animals have rights, that means that we cannot eat meat and seafood, which is a major source of protein, because many people don't eat lots of beans because meat tastes better. 
3. Many animals will become extinct. Making zoos will not only save animals, it will make people have a chance looking at them.
4. There are so many things you can’t do if animals have rights, like you can’t fish, hunt, learn things in zoos, go to zoos, and it is hard to study from animals. 
There are just so many advantages for animals not having rights, but if animals do have rights, that means that we can’t fish, hunt, eat meat or seafood, study for animals, go to zoos, and the endangered animals will all die. If we want animals like pandas still to be alive, the zoo is the only choice.
Argument 2: Animals will become extinct
Why should this be in my side? Zoos are animal rights Con. Zoos help animals not get extinct. Therefore, having animal rights, makes no zoos, which makes animals into extinction.
This is kinda like my fourth advantage, but it will be explained more.
Yes, endangered animals will be extinct.
Lets take an example of a siberian tiger.
“The Siberian –or Amur- tiger is considered a critically endangered species with the primary threats to its’ survival in the wild being poaching and habitat loss from intensive logging and development.”
My opponent can say that we can stop. But sadly we can’t. Fur coats are not only pretty, they are also very warm, good for the winter. So the tiger will soon become extinct. But if there are zoos, then we can at least know there are some tigers that are safe, but bored in zoos. Even if there are no tigers left, there will be in zoos. These tigers will have babies also. This is the only way we can stop this. Yes, many people are trying to protect tigers from hunting, but there is two more problems.
The first problem is habit loss.
“Tigers are extremely territorial though so they will fight other animals and other tigers that invade their space. This problem has become more of an issue due to the natural environment for tigers being destroyed at an alarming rate, as a male tiger may have a territory of up to 60 to 100 square kilometers, while females up to 20 square kilometers, as this numbers change according with the habitat and subspecies. As a result they have to venture into new territories to be able to find adequate amounts of food.” , , , , , , , 
This is a big space. However, tigers can’t use this much. People build homes, and there territory will be destroyed. This means that they fight with other tigers, but because the spaces are getting smaller, they have to fight, and one will probably die. , 
The last problem is food. There is not a lot of food in Siberia or any foods that a tiger can eat, like deer or rabbits. The tigers will soon starve. Many tigers even died because of this. If they are in zoos though, they can have food easily.
*Most important* Summary: Animal Right is bad. There are more good things when banning animal rights, then good things, as the definition says that animals are apart from humans and plants. If we allow animal rights, then that means that we can't eat any meat. We can't eat fish, beef, pork, etc. We can't make more medicine, which can make people die. If we want to make the world have more space, then we need to ban animal rights. If you want to continue to eat meat, go to zoos, see animals like tigers, then vote for Con, for banning animal rights. If you want to vote for Pro, then that means that you need to be a strict vegetarian, and not eat any meat, okay that endangered animals die, not making important medecine, and people can die, can't go to zoos, and we have to move houses if a tiger comes in our territory. Do you want this? Or do you want us to eat meat, and ban animal rights? I will let you choose, but I strongly believe that you should vote Con.
If you want to eat bacon, vote Con!
A. The Negative Sides of Animal Testing
“All procedures, even those classified as “mild,” have the potential to cause the animals physical as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in subsequent experiments. Here is a selection of common animal procedures:
Should the animals have to deal with this? They feel pain just like people do, emotionally and physically. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this.
“The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don’t understand well how they actually experience pain.” 
They experience pain, we know that, but they can’t communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can’t consent to the experiments while people can. We can’t be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation.
To add to my point, animal tests aren’t necessarily effective. For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it’s official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities.  Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc.) and they didn’t experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. 
In other words, animal testing not only harmful to the animals involved, but it’s also incredibly pointless, as showed above.
Extinction - the state or situation that results when something (such as a plant or animal species) has died out completely  But why is this bad? As I’ll go on to explain, it affects the ecosystem and humans.
Sub point I. Ecosystem
“Take, for example, the gray wolf. Before a mass extermination effort in the U.S. that decimated wolf populations in the first half of the 20th century, wolves kept other animals' populations from growing exponentially. They hunted elk, deer, and moose and also killed smaller animals such as coyotes, raccoons, and beavers.
“Without wolves to keep other animals' numbers in check, prey populations grew larger. Exploding elk populations in the western United States wiped out so many willows and other riparian plants that songbirds no longer had sufficient food or cover in these areas, threatening their survival and increasing numbers of insects like mosquitos that the songbirds were meant to control.” 
This was all caused by the popularity of hunting them for sport. Though, thankfully, some of the efforts to save the gray wolves have been successful,  they’re still hunted today.  This affects the entire ecosystem, as shown by this real example. As the populations of prey rose, the need for food of them also skyrocketed. This made the plants die out and the numbers of mosquitos increased after the songbirds started to die out. This can greatly harm the ecosystem to disastrous proportions.
First, let’s look at an example of American Bison.
"Originally, the bison was a common animal on the central plains, and the Native Americans of the region depended on the animal for food, leather, fur and many other goods vital to a nomadic lifestyle. By 1890, however, there were only a few thousand bison left in America. Tribal hunters were able to kill more of the animals with the aid of firearms, and in some cases the United States government encouraged the widespread slaughter of bison herds. The vanishing species forced tribes dependent on the animal to move to new lands in search of food, and eventually those tribes could no longer support themselves and had to deal with the United States government for survival.” 
This was all caused by the excess hunting of American Bison. The tribes had to relocate in order to get more food. Remember, if we don't learn from our mistakes in the past, history repeats itself. This can easily happen again. This is why we need stricter hunting laws to prevent this from happening again. Yes, we still should be allowed to hunt, as there are some people who live off the land in other remote areas, but hunting in excess or for sport can prove to be detrimental to not only to the animals who may go extinct, but also the ecosystem and people.
"Whether it is sexism, racism, classism, transphobia, or speciesism– all forms of prejudice seem to stem from a worldview that leaves out the interests of some other beings." 
This proves to be true for animals as well. They're sentient beings. They can feel, think, and they have emotion, just like us. In no way am I saying that animals are the same as humans, as we're quite different from them, but we should be treated the same morally. So why treat them any lesser than us?
"In the Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels asserts that the minimum conception of morality is an effort to follow reason while treating each being equally. Thus morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interests. With this view, our moral sphere must include any individual with interests. Most people, as speciesists, do not believe nonhuman animals have interests. But what does 'having interests' entail? At the very least, if an individual has the capacity to suffer, then that individual has an interest in not suffering." 
"Speciesism is often condemned as the same sort of bigotry as racism or sexism.
"People who oppose speciesiesm say that giving human beings greater rights than non-human animals is as arbitrary (and as morally wrong) as giving white people greater rights than non-white people." 
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|