The Instigator
nathin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Donderpants
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should Animals Be Given the Same Rights As Humans?

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...
Donderpants
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 77531
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

nathin

Con

I would hope that nobody came to this debate thinking that I am some cruel and selfish person, but if you did, I completely understand. I love animals and would hate to see them mistreated. Every day animals are abused, poached, and hunted for sport. As humans continue to advance, we also continue to be more and more careless towards the environment. I am a believer in animal rights. But their rights should not be the same as ours. Many people who believe in granting animals rights believe that we should give them the same rights that we have, but I will prove that this is not the case.

(C1) One BIG problem with animals having the same rights as humans is that they are much more primitive compared to us. We had no control over this. It's just they way nature made the world. That being said, there are many rights that we have that don't apply to animals. For example, the first amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Obviously, animals don't have religions, cannot speak, and are also unable to petition the government.

(C2) Another part of the animals being more primitive is that even if we did grant them the same rights as humans, they wouldn't know that they had rights, or even know what the word "rights" means.

(C3) One more thing to note is that different countries have different laws and therefore their citizens have different rights. Assuming that every country on earth gave animals the same rights as their citizens, some animals would get screwed just because of the country they happen to live in and would have little to no rights. They obviously can't immigrate to another country, and it wouldn't even be worth giving them rights if it didn't make an improvement.

In conclusion, the most practical thing that we can do is make laws preventing humans from harming animals. But seeing as we have already tried that and it hasn't helped to much, it might be worth trying to grant them rights, but it could take a while to make an entirely new constitution specifically for animals. So for the time being, all we can really do is donate to animal rescues and hope that changes will be made.

The first amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Donderpants

Pro

First off, thank you, my opponent, for starting this debate. I look forward to doing this one, may the best debater win.

The question is not specified yet, so I will specify what I view the question as-
"Should some animals be given some/all of the rights given to humans"

Obviously there's no way I could argue that sharks have the right to a lawyer or such things- but certain animals deserve more of our rights.

And now, onto rebuttal!

1. That's a pointless right to give them, but a harmless one- Animals can't form religions (so far as we know) but having the right to start a religion is harmless, as they can't start a religion regardless. Why should animals not have that right? They'll abuse our rules less on most cases than humans would. If animals can't have completely harmless rights, we certainly shouldn't have rights that can be abused

2. They wouldn't know they had rights- yet again, this is not a bad thing. All it means is that humans get punished for treating animals in a wrong manner. Animals would not know they had rights- but humans would, and that's the point of animal rights, to stop us treating them wrongly.

3. The same could be said of humans- some humans will live worse lives because of where they live. Would you rather those people have no rights at all? They could be enslaved at will, they could be killed on a whim...... At least those people have some rights. Likewise animals would prosper off these few rights, however few they be.

Now my own points-

Animals need some rights- if suddenly animals are treated the way humans are supposed to be treated, people can't be as horrid to the animal kingdom as we have been in past. Not all animals, and not all rights- but some animals should have rights.

In response to your conclusion- think about it- the rights set in the normal constitution either will make no difference in the life of that animal, or will take away people's rights to mistreat them. Forget a whole new constitution, just give them your old one, and what applies to them applies, and what doesn't won't make a difference, save time, money, human error, and animal lives sooner. To suggest that we should not give animals rights immediately is to murder millions of creatures. So unless you want that blood on your hands, it makes sense to give these animals rights, so that those millions of lives can continue and not end just because apparently we humans are too "special" to share our rights.
Debate Round No. 1
nathin

Con

nathin forfeited this round.
Donderpants

Pro

If you forfeit again next round, that is an automatic win to me. Even if you come back in round 4 or 5, if you miss round 3, I'm calling that an automatic win. I think you can agree that would be fair, if I forfeited two rounds in a row I'd expect everyone to vote for you, so if you miss next round, you lose. So come back next round, or I win.
Debate Round No. 2
nathin

Con

nathin forfeited this round.
Donderpants

Pro

Two forfeits in a row. Automatic win for me.
Debate Round No. 3
nathin

Con

nathin forfeited this round.
Donderpants

Pro

Just hurrying this along to the voting period.
Debate Round No. 4
nathin

Con

nathin forfeited this round.
Donderpants

Pro

And again, just to hurry this along to the voting period.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Donderpants
@Hayd
That sentence structure is a bit hard to follow...

And in any case- I happen to have picked up on some loop holes in the sentence structure of the question.

I mentioned that he did not mention how many of the same rights they should get, nor did he mention how many of these animals receive these rights. Obviously I could not reasonably argue that dangerous species should get every single one of those human rights, that would have very severe consequences, but giving certain animals more of these rights is perfectly reasonable, and following the structure of the question, that's what I'm arguing.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
Hayd
Pro straw mans; the resolution is "Should Animals be given the same rights as humans?"
Not some or partial, full.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
Same rights? No. Increased rights? Yes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
nathinDonderpantsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture