The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

giving animals 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 346 times Debate No: 82348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




animals are living beings who are able to feel pain, have emotions, and make decisions just as humans. If someone murders a person they can get a life sentence or even the death penalty. if someone kills an animal without reason their life was not in danger the worst they face is a couple years in jail. if someone decided to own a bunch of humans keep them in poor conditions and then slaughter them they would undoubtedly face serious criminal charges while it is legal to do the same thing to animals. on the other side of this animals who bite a human can be forced to be put to death. this is equivalent to giving someone the death penalty for punching someone. both the human and the animal can be considered dangerous to society however society allows the human to continue living among society. keep in mind that the animal may have even been provoked to do this either from an abusive past trigger or the human being violent with the animal. thinking that this is right is outright arrogant and sick in no way was that system created from a kind and rational being. If we gave animals the same legal rights as humans this animal injustice would be put to an end they would be protected from murder, abuse, and unfair treatment. It would also deter people from a tendency to take out their violence on animals as they could face the same charges as if it were a human. in the end who in their right mind would think that it's ok to treat animals cruely there is no reason that animals need to be killed or abused so why wouldn't you want to stop that from happening to them?


Hope this will be a healthy debate. And good luck.

From analyzing your argument I have obtained these following arguments
1. Humans have the right to kill animals, however not kill humans (for 'minimal damage'), and such is morally wrong, "arrogant and sick',
2. Animals are kind and rational beings. therefore we should give them the same rights as humans as it would protect them from murder, abuse and unfair treatment.
3. these rights would deter humans from abuse as they would be charged with the same crime as if were a human

I will now rebut your argument and disprove your premises.

Humans are only permitted to execute humans after fair reason is provided. Such is their danger to society and likely hood of future occurrence. This would also apply to animals. An animal bite is not equivalent to a punch from a human, and nor are they always put down for such. "Animals" entails a large range of species, many of which would inflict much, much greater damage then humans are capable of in a punch. However statistics prove that dogs who have bitten are likely to repeat such action again. This likely hood of occurrence is a danger to the 'peace' in our society and so thus, like particular criminals should be acted on accordingly.

Animals are not all 'kind and rational beings'. The broader definition of 'animals' includes many species, for example ants. Ants do not have either the level of intelligence or consciousness of humans, limiting their capacity to feel pain. And so they should not be treated with the same carefulness.
Additionally, avoiding animals, especially those with high sentient emotion does not require 'human rights'. Animal rights already legislated in Australia protects animals from all harmful proceedings, HOWEVER does not reward them other privileges as humans. ( (for further reference ) )

Research has concluded that humans who commonly abuse animals also do so to humans. Therefore the penalty for abusing humans is not a deterrent.

My rebuttal does not promote the assault of animals, however penalizes such. Your flaw in reasoning stated that for animals to not be abused they must have equal rights as humans.
Debate Round No. 1


1. The way humans are handled with executing them after fair reason I do agree with and I also agree that after fair reason it should apply to animals. However a non lethal attack committed by a human would not be put to death nor do I think an animal should. Not in all cases are they put to death for such act but there have been many cases where they were. I feel the appropriate action to take depends on the circumstances as it does with human. An abusive past trigger would be the insanity defense and should have a form of rehabilitation to help the animal no longer be triggered as well as having the pet owner take extra cautionary measures. A animal that was just aggressive should receive the same second chance that a human gets and be able to get training to try to correct the behavior and only if that were to fail and the animal to repeat the offense should it be put down. I realize that a bite can do more damage than a punch however it was the closest thing I could think of a general attack would likely be more comparable.

2. When talking about animals I do not include insects such as ants and flies for the reason it would be near impossible and completely impractical to give them the same human rights as you could accidentally step on an ant without realizing as most people do in their lifetime and giving them the same rights you would be charged for murder. In addition you could have an infestation of insects that would be detrimental to your well being. While I agree with the laws presented in your source factory farming of animals is still legal. While I understand people still wish to consume meat and animal products and so killing animals for food is likely to remain for a while though I disagree with such factory farming is on an entirely different scale. Factory farming conditions cram many animals together in cages to small, confine them indoors, kill them in more efficient inhumane methods, and carry out many other malpractices. These farm animals do not receive the same rights as pets. In addition hunting is still legal as well and the hunter in not required to use the animal for food. That would be the equivalent of hunting humans for fun, or for sport. While in some cases hunting is to keep the population of a specific animal down not all animals that are hunted are anywhere near overpopulation. With these still going on animal suffering is still occurring. In addition you will still not face the same charges for harming an animal as a human meaning that if you were to illegally kill or abuse animals you would then be released and have the ability to kill or abuse more.

3. I am aware that there is a link between abusing animals and abusing humans however there are still some people who are less likely to commit a crime if there is risk of serious criminal charges. Just as if taking money of the ground became classified as theft you would be much more likely to leave the money. Of course it doesn't work in all cases some might think they won't get caught or no one's looking but there is a deterrent to prevent it from occurring more frequently by these individuals who take into account the consequences of their actions.


Putting down an animal, especially a pet requires great thought from owners and council. This process is generally mandatory and are only put down in the event of serious injuries and a high likely hood of future occurrence (which could be life threatening). Humans do not have the ability to rehabilitate or rationalize with animals as they either do not have the thinking capacity, or the language to communicate. Dogs who attack are proven to be far more likely to attack again, however due to the inability and funding problems they are put down when necessary (to the better of society).

Your argument states that killing ants is acceptable if it is inadvertent or for the well being of others. However how can you label animals with higher sentient emotion then others and provide them with differing degrees of care. As in the question of factory farming, much movement, particularly in the Territory ACT (Australia) legislation has been passed to prevent the cruel treatment of caged hens. Other areas of Australia are reviewing their policies and treatment of animals in factory farming. However passing legislation against the conduct of such DOES NOT require HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights are not necessary to animals in avoidance of cruel treatment.
Additionally, Hunting animals requires strict permits and is only allowed in selected seasons so the animals have time to regenerate. However I do not concur with the ability to hunt as it is cruel to animals.
Also, increasing the punishment for animal murder to that of a human will not correct the problem. Humans who are convicted of life in prison are released and often DO COMMIT THE CRIME AGAIN. Therefore the increasing the offence does not ensure it will not happen again.

Your argument is not addressing rewarding animals with 'human rights' but instead is only saying they should be free from cruelty.

Different countries legislate different rights, so for universabilty i will reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Such articles include
The right to religion:
Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Freedom of opinion and expression

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The right to marriage

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Right to Education
Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Such rights would not be suitable for animals, and thus should not be provided for them. Please address this issue. Animals do not require the same rights as humans do be free from torture
Debate Round No. 2


Putting down the pet is not always mandatory. There have been parents who put down pets for biting their child even when the child provokes them by being rough with the animal. While it is understandable to not want the animal around your child there are several better alternatives such as keeping the animal and your child separated until your child is old enough to be good with animals or giving the dog away. In addition animals are put down merely due to a lack of space in kennels rather than letting stays who have not harmed anyone stay free and letting the ones you have live. In the cases where it is mandatory it is not only in the event of serious injuries and a high likely hood of future occurrence such as shown in this case now when you compare that to this case where a human received 1 year in jail for biting the dog and strangling it blinding it in one eye you can see clear unfairness to animals in the court of law.

While prisoners released from prison after receiving a life sentence do commit the crime again a longer period of time has passed since the crime was committed preventing it from occurring until that time has passed releasing them earlier allows more animals to be harmed as the criminal is free earlier giving him/her more time to harm animals.

You argue that animals do not need human rights
article 1 animals would benefit from being treated equally with humans and with each other as there are breed discrimination's that go so far as to make certain breeds illegal in some places.
2 again preventing discrimination amongst different breeds.
3 animals should also have a right to life liberty and security of person as in having no harm or mistreatment come to them
4 animals should not be enslaved
5 no torture or cruel treatments which animals should also be entitled to
6 animals should also be considered individual beings and not property
7 animals should receive equal protection from the law
8 animals should have the right to have violations of their rights fixed so that their rights will no longer be violated
9 animals should not be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile
10 animals should receive entitlement to a fair and public hearing
11 animals should have the right to be innocent until proven guilty nor should they face being held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence nor heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable
12 animals should not face arbitrary attacks to his reputation
13 animals should have freedom of movement and not be confined to a specific area
14 animals should have the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
15 some breeds have the nation in which they originated as part of their names they should not be forced to change this
16 animals should have the right to a family aka reproduce
17 while an animal may not own a property it should have the right to not be abruptly deprived of his/her home
18 animals should have the right to think as they wish and not be forced to think a specific way
19 animals should be free to express their opinions such as if they dislike something they should be free to remove themselves from it such a a dislike of being around children the animal should receive the right to express this and stay away from children instead of being forced to be around them.
20 animals should have the right to not be forced into an association where the animal may be unhappy
21 animals should have equal access public services such as parks or veterinary clinics
22 animals should have the right to a personality
23 animals should have he right to favorable conditions for work
24 animals should have the right to rest and leisure
25 animals should have the right to standard of living adequate for health and well-being
26 animals should have the right to education such as socializing classes and training while allowing their owners/parents a right to choose the kind of education
27 animals should have the right to participate in cultural life of the community
28 animals should have the right to a society in which their rights are recognized
29 animals should have the right to exercise their freedoms
These rights would protect animals from cruelty and give them fair treatment as well. While all of these may not be necessary to prevent cruelty to animals they are still beneficial and I see no reason as to why these rights should not be given.
going back over article 16 while marriage does not apply to animals they should have the right to reproduce/have a family
with whatever breed they like and their family should be protected by society.
19 and 26 were already fully addressed above


Criminal justice systems are not always accurate. Numerous cases are reported of victims being convicted to death, or life in prison. The right to such does not ensure it will be acted on.
Particularly dogs who have committed an assault on persons are a risk to society and removing the animal from area will not ensure another attack will be avoided.

Humans convicted of longer sentences is not correlated with the act of being committed again. Allowing convicted persons the ability to act sooner then later is not of effect by it actually happening. It will happen. Sooner or later.

Additionally the Human Declaration of Human Rights provides some great articles that would benefit Animals. However the question at point:

Giving Animals The Same Rights As Humans

This includes all rights not a selected few. If the question was to select a few rights, the conditions would have already been met due to Animal protection Acts. However this is not the question, every right must be equal and by such they would be rewarded the right to education, the right to marriage and the right to vote. Such rights, as you admitted would not be apply-able to animals and so -
Animals should not be given the same rights as humans.

Your argument continued the fallacy of Strawman. You did not address the question making it an easier question to attack.

Animals should not be given all the rights of humans.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Forever23 11 months ago
So this debates key arguments are mostly about whether animals are able to reason or not. At the end, I would have to side with opposition.
Posted by Theothermichael 11 months ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Forever23 11 months ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con better explained the notion and was obviously more credible.