The Instigator
wolfgirl94
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

animal rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,087 times Debate No: 11105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

wolfgirl94

Pro

Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Although the resolution is unclear, I am taking it as my opponent is affirming that all Animals deserve rights.

== DEFINITIONS ==

Scientifically, an animal which comes under the Kingdom "Animalia" is an animal (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

I am assuming my opponent is excluding Humans from the list of animals.

== CON ==

=== PARASITES ===

Cestoda, commonly known as tapeworms, are parasites. They are also animals. They are flatworms, and they are also parasitic and cause great harms to humans.

"Cestodes (tapeworms) and digeneans (flukes) cause important diseases in humans and their livestock, and monogeneans can cause serious losses of stocks in fish farms. Schistosomiasis, also known as bilharzia or snail fever, is the second most devastating parasitic disease in tropical countries, behind malaria. The Carter Center estimates that 200 million people in 74 countries are infected with the disease, and half the victims live in Africa." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly parasitical animals cause a great deal of human loss. Therefore it is justifiable to kill these animals before they harm humans, as it is their nature to be parasitical, and cause the aforementioned destructive harm.

=== ANIMALS CAN'T HAVE RIGHTS ===

Rights exist to order. They exist as long as the creatures involve can respect it, and recognise it as a boundary, and are rationally motivated to take action should that person go against there rights. Since animals can't recognise these rights, and aren't rationally motivated, they can't have rights.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
wolfgirl94

Pro

Sorry it took so long i can only be on computer one hr a day!
==pro==
===Animal testing===

Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the safety of cosmetics and other products. Substances such as eye shadow and soap are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that the test results don't help prevent or treat human illness or injury.

People often fail to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific creatures, that we discard at our own convenience. Some of these animals come from animal shelters and others even worse, some have been stolen directly from their own front yard. Imagine your pet one day being crammed into a cage with ten other animals waiting to die for numerous unreliable tests. People look at these animals being tested on as their own. They will realize how horrible it must be if it was there own pet.

We are constantly hearing on the news and other programs about people going to jail or of people having there animals taken from them and being fined because they haven't been feeding them or looking after them. We know these things are illegal.

So why do scientists get away with what they are doing and these things are not accidental and they are definitely cruel and even barbaric so why do they get away with this?

The list of alternatives can go on forever, so why must all these defenseless animals go on suffering. It is almost the end of the 20th century, we had some many scientific advancements are we not past animal testing. People need to stop turning the other shoulder when it comes to animal testing. It is a real issue and also a real problem at hand. The problem that we are faced with is not a difficult one to fix. The technology is available for us to use and we should take advantage of our advanced alternate methods.

Their eyes are sometimes surgically removed; their brains and spinal cords damaged, and their bones broken. Animals are force fed substances through a stomach tube, forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance applied to their rectum or vagina.

Cosmetics are not required to be tested on animals and since non-animal alternatives are around, it's hard to understand why some companies still continue to conduct these tests. Cosmetic companies kill millions of animals every year to try to make a profit. It is horrible inaccurate to test the reaction of one species to study another. Why are we testing a substance that might affect apart of animal that is different than ours? Also, why would you want to use a product that at one point in time, might have given animal a disease or a horrible defect?

=Animals should have rights=

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth – a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy – it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all non-human animals exist solely for human use. As PETA's managing director, Ingrid E. Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife".

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn't eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank PRO for her response.

== Pro ==

=== Animal testing ===

My opponent has plagiarised her argument off of this website - http://www.exampleessays.com...

As she does not acknowledge it as a source and it is not her own work, I am not responding to it.

=== Animals should have rights ===

My opponent has also completely plagiarised another website under the same circumstance - http://www.peta.org...

Again I will not respond to it.

I await my opponents response to my arguments and some of her own actual arguments
Debate Round No. 2
wolfgirl94

Pro

wolfgirl94 forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

Unfortunatley, my opponent forfeited her round 3 and did not present her own arguments. My own arguments still stand without refutation. With this in mind, I strongly urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 4 years ago
I-am-a-panda
As I've said before, if she posts her own work, I'll have no issue with refuting it
Posted by Kahvan 4 years ago
Kahvan
I am not disagreeing with you panda. It is bad.

me-"I do not agree with what she did. But I think it would have been more beneficial for you, had you refuted the argument she presented."

OreEle-"True, just because she copied the work, does not mean the work is invalid. It just means that she definitely loses conduct (IMO)."
Posted by I-am-a-panda 4 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Look, plagiarism = bad.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
True, just because she copied the work, does not mean the work is invalid. It just means that she definitely loses conduct (IMO).
Posted by Kahvan 4 years ago
Kahvan
I do not agree with what she did. But I think it would have been more beneficial for you, had you refuted the argument she presented.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 4 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I'll refute PRO's work, not work she copied off someone.
Posted by Kahvan 4 years ago
Kahvan
so both have unrefuted arguments. Con should have still refuted pro.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Yeah okay, they both have unrefuted arguments on the field.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Panda presented an argument, and wolfgirl didn't address his arguments because she plagiarized. Therefore, wolfgirl has to address Panda before he can address her arguments.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Hmm...is that enough? If you don't respond to your opponents arguments when he plagiarises them, then surely you forfeit the arguments points? After all, Pro has put unrefuted arguments on the field.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 4 years ago
I-am-a-panda
wolfgirl94I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 4 years ago
atheistman
wolfgirl94I-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jan_PL_S6 4 years ago
Jan_PL_S6
wolfgirl94I-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
wolfgirl94I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 4 years ago
Kahvan
wolfgirl94I-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16