The Instigator
ccreus
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

animals have rights, just as humans do

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: 1/29/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,115 times Debate No: 11011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (9)

 

ccreus

Pro

Animals are living creatures, and just like us they feel pain, and suffering. if they are always loyal to us then why do they not deserve the same rights that we have
Grape

Con

I would like to thank my opponent and the audience for this debate on animals rights. My opponent's resolution for this argument is that animals have rights, just as humans do. To clarify, this makes the following assertions:

A. Animals have rights
B. Humans have rights
C. Animals and Humans have the same rights

I could contend all three of these points, but for the sake of this argument I will concede A and B. My only concern in this debate is to show that my opponent cannot prove that humans and animals have the same rights.

As I understand it, my opponent makes the main arguments in support of the resolution:

1. Animals are living creatures
2. Animals feel pain
3. Animals are always loyal to us

So in order to satisfy that my opponent cannot prove the resolution, I will have to refute each of these arguments.

1. Plants are living creatures, but they are not given any rights at all. We use them to build houses and make paper. We also kill them and burn their bodies for warmth. They do not seem to have any rights. I doubt anyone would argue for their rights. Bacteria are also living creatures. Attitudes toward bacteria can be seen here:

http://news.thomasnet.com...

So, we do not grant a thing rights on the basis of whether or not it is alive.

2. Conceded that most animals do feel pain. However, not all human rights are related to the ability to feel pain. One example of this is the right to self determination. A UN general comment on self determination can be read here for further information: http://www.unhchr.ch.... I don't think many people would argue that this right ought to be extended to animals. It has nothing to do with pain or suffering.

3. http://animal.discovery.com...

Animals are not always loyal to us. They frequently attack humans.

Conclusion:

My opponent has not adequately supported the resolution that humans and animals should have the same rights. The first two points do not explain why animals should be extended rights as they do not seem to apply. The third point is simply false.
Debate Round No. 1
ccreus

Pro

1. Though it is true that not all rights have to do with pain many do, and since this is true than why do animals not have, at the very least, those simple rights? What my opponent fails to notice is that animals are so closely related to us, that they feel the same kind of pain we do, in the same amounts we do, as is shown here:

http://www.directessays.com...

2. My opponent also makes the argument that there are animals that attack us. But are there not humans who also attack us? as the site below shows, these animals that do indeed attack, are only doing so out of feel of threat, or simply being egged on by those who feel themselves superior, in this case, humans.

http://www.metacafe.com...

conclusion:
my opponent has not sufficiently disproved my arguments to show that animals do not deserve some of the same rights as humans do. The second point which he stated does not apply I have shown does indeed apply, and the third which my opponent states is not true has a simple and logical explanation.
Grape

Con

Thanks to my open for the timely response. However, the resolution that animals deserve the same rights as humans as still not upheld. My opponent does not seem to have understood exactly what I am arguing.

1. The point that animals do not have rights by virtue of being living creatures has not been argued, and silence is consent. Therefore I will assume that it has been conceded.

2. Many animals do feel pain as humans do. I have not in any way failed to understand this However, the resolution is not that animals specifically have the right, for instance, to not be tortured. The resolution is that animals have all the rights humans have. The capacity to feel pain my grant some rights, but it does not grant others. I offered the right of self-determination as an example. Animals do not have the right to establish their own states just because they can feel pain.

3. I used the fact that animals attack us to demonstrate that they are not loyal to humans. If animals attack humans, that is a clear sign they are not loyal. There may be a reason why they attack, but that does not alter the fact that trying to kill someone is a disloyal thing to do. This does not apply to humans that attack us because we do not extent rights to them on the basis that they are loyal. Why would we extent rights on the basis of loyalty anyway? I can safely say that the trees in my yard would never intentionally betray me, but that does not give them human rights

Conclusion:

My opponent has not argued that animals deserve some of the rights that humans do. My opponent specifically stated that they deserve "the same rights that we have." I have demonstrated a human right (self-determination) that does not apply to animals and explained why the arguments she offered in support of the resolution are invalid. No sources were used in this round because it seems I only had to clarify my points. Being able to feel pain does not give an animal all rights and neither does loyalty. In any case, animals are not universally loyal to humans, as evidenced by the fact that, for whatever reason, they kill people. My opponent has not justified her arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ccreus

Pro

Thank you for the prompt reply from my opponent. I am led to believe that my opponent does not quite understand where I am coming from.

1. My opponent assumed that when I said that animals should have the same rights, that I meant all the same rights. But it is obvious there are some rights animals cannot use, due to the fact that they are not human and do not live the same way. The example of pain is just that, and example, it is not the extent of all the situations that should allow an animal to have rights.

2. Animals minds don't quite work the same as our minds, their loyalty is always there, even after defending themselves against what they consider a threat. Just because an animal attacks does not mean it is trying to kill. Once again my opponent assumes such things. Even after a dog bites its owner when being cornered, it will go back and lay on their lap. the only reason they attacked was because they were threatened, not because they wanted to kill. Even after striking out they will still stay loyal and save our lives when need be

conclusion:
As I stated in this rebuttal I did not state that animals should get ALL the rights that humans get, because there are some that could not be used. The one example that my opponent gave was a right that an animal could clearly not use, therefore it helps his case in no way. I used no sources, like my opponent due to the fact that I am explaining my standpoint so my opponent can understand my stance better. Pain is a small example of reasons animals need rights and my opponent took it as my only example. My case still stands. My opponent never sufficiently argued his case therefore I ask that you the audience, find that animals do deserve the rights that humans deserve.
Grape

Con

Thanks to my opponent for a good debate. I will offer assurance that I do understand where my opponent is coming from. The fact that I do not take it in the intended direction is merely a product of my insanity.

1. If humans and animals do not have all the same rights, than they would not have the some rights. If animals do not have all the rights that humans have, than they would not have just the same rights. The fact that animals cannot use all human rights is not a flaw in my argument, but a fact that obviously supports it. In any case, the ability to experience pain is not necessary a basis on which we extend rights. It may lead to the conclusion that it is immoral to hurt animals but it does not necessary grant them rights, and certain not rights that aren't related to pain or are beyond their ability to use.

2. My opponent may feel that animals are loyal, but animal behavior does not support this. It cannot simply be said that they are loyal despite any actions to the contrary because thier minds are different from those of humans. My oppenent also neglects to address the fact that some animals are too simple to be loyal. The point that rights are not extended on the basis of loyalty is likewise neglected.

Conclusion:

My opponent's arguments are that loyalty and the ability to feel pain are a basis to extend human rights to animals. Animals are not loyal and neither loyalty nor pain are a basis to extend rights. Furthermore, humans have many rights that animals would not be able to exercise even if they were granted.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ccreus 7 years ago
ccreus
i voted. i kno i did not win. and i did not expect to. i called it just as i saw it
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
'Rights' is a human concept, therefore they are what we want them to be. The problem is, who do we let make those decisions? Majority? President? That's where it gets more complicated.
Posted by Jesusrules 7 years ago
Jesusrules
Animals cannot have rights, they can't make decisions. Lets say a cow is taken to be slaughtered. You never see a cow start refusing in front of the rancher, because they cannot. Also if you try to stop slaughtering, it is a bad argument. Also we use animals, so what you argue against slaughtering, it is weak.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
ccreus: when you vote for someone who clearly lost the debate (no offense), it just makes you look biased. maybe she seriously thought you won but to be brutally honest, i didn't think this debate was close. my vote is justified because con actually won.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
'Wow, why do people always vote against me on conduct randomly? Does anyone reading this feel that I am being rude during the debate?'

I think a lot of people mistake good arguments for rudeness. When somebody writes a devastating rebuttal to their opponents position, then it can seem bad conduct by virtue of it derailing their opponent.
Posted by ccreus 7 years ago
ccreus
why do you say hers i s biased when your results turn up the exact same, except for the other person?
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
hey true2gaga, mind explaining your completely biased vote?
Posted by ccreus 7 years ago
ccreus
i do not so much as ignore it as i realize that the debate is over. there are times and places for debates and i dont care to argue this one right now lol
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
*Notices how ccreus ignores standing up for her position in the comments*
Posted by ccreus 7 years ago
ccreus
thank you grape. it was a great first experience. it was really exhilarating
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ccreus 7 years ago
ccreus
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CALife 7 years ago
CALife
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by lambda 7 years ago
lambda
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
ccreusGrapeTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
ccreusGrapeTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
ccreusGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03