The Instigator
veggiedout
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Should you be able to break the law in order to protect animal rights?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 16954
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

veggiedout

Pro

Laws should be able to be broken when protecting animal rights.
petersaysstuff

Con

First I want to thank my opponent.

1: There is an inherent flaw in the resolution. When saying that laws can be broken to protect animal rights, this leaves a huge gap in clarification. One does not know which laws and the severity of the break. For this reason, and since my opponent has not specified, I will show that "Breaking and entering to protect animal rights should not be allowed". I chose this since this seems the crime most often committed by animal rights activists.

2: Said crime should not be tolerated for the following reasons:

a)The law was put in place to protect private property and if we as a society ignore one crime, that will lead to use ignoring another and another and another ad nauseam. This lack of regard for the constructs of our society is in no way good since our delicate culture is based upon the upholding of the rules and if these rules are broken, the social fabric unravels.

b)When breaking the aforementioned law, there is a big risk for harm of either the owner of the building or the person committing the crime. The owner of the building can be injured if they just so happen to stroll down stairs and see the crime being committed, the criminal may feel flustered and act out thus harming the victim. Another scenario would be if the victim had a weapon and felt that they were being sufficiently threated as to use self defense. This type of action could maim or even kill the criminal.

Here we have two impacts, the unraveling of our social fabric and the injury or death of the criminal/victim. But here I leave my opponent with a question, if there is a risk of a human being killed for whatever "right" is being stood up for, is that fine? In other words, do human lives out weigh those of other animals?
Debate Round No. 1
veggiedout

Pro

veggiedout forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

*sigh* extend and I dare say I win?
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
veggiedoutpetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
veggiedoutpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
veggiedoutpetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by shooterboss 5 years ago
shooterboss
veggiedoutpetersaysstuffTied
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: Pro forfeited this debate. He only set up a thesis, but never developed his topic. Therefore, the automatic win goes to Con. Understandably, no sources were used.