The Instigator
8803
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

resolved: it is morally right for animals to have 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 23182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

8803

Pro

I. A California man accused of fatally slamming his wife's Chihuahua against a wall during a domestic dispute could be sentenced to life in prison, according to authorities. Bud Wally Ruiz gave the 6-week-old puppy, Teddy, to his wife for Mother's Day. His wife called police just days later after Ruiz hurled a small travel case with the dog inside across a room as the two argued. He now faces two felony counts of cruelty to animals and a misdemeanor count of spousal battery, reports the (San Jose Mercury News)and for that reason I'm on the affirmative side of this debate. in the us there were 1,090 cases of animal abuse in the us alone. the worst punishment in new Mexico is 18 years in jail. There are only three states who have not made animal cruelty a felony offense, they are Idaho, south Dakota,and north Dakota.
II. Animals have been on this planet longer than humans. so why should they be treated like they are less than us? is it because we are dominant? well we have got to stop it. it is not morally right and with that I urge you to vote pro.
royalpaladin

Con

Animals are not capable of joining the social contract. The social contract is an agreement between individuals and the state that is based on reciprocity. Individuals in society relinquish some liberties to the state, and consent to follow the state's laws, in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. Joining the social contract is contingent upon one's ability to consent to follow laws; if one does not follow rules, then one's rights are not protect. For example, we violate the right to liberty of felons because they openly flout the moral codes created to protect the rights of all. Animals are not capable of joining the social contract, thus indicating that their rights ought not be considered.

Moreover, animals are incapable of consenting to society because they lack rationality. Professor Joel Fineberg explains, "Well-trained dogs sometimes let their masters down; they anticipate punishment or other manifestations of displeasure; they grovel and whimper, and they even
Debate Round No. 1
8803

Pro

Animals have feelings which we need to realize.
royalpaladin

Con

We don't have any obligation to accept "feelings" when deciding whether or not to protect people. Rights are accorded to rationality and one's consent to society. There is no moral obligation by the government to protect people who are not part of our community (hence why we turn away illegal immigrants). Similarly, there is no moral obligation to protect animals because they cannot join our society. He hasn't attacked this, so you can extend this across the round.
Debate Round No. 2
8803

Pro

8803 forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Con

My opponent drops my social contract argument. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
It is arbitrary defined, but people have the right to freely associate with whomever they please.

I would accept that as a sufficient justification based on my arguments in this debate.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Human society is arbitrarily defined. Your argument boils down to "we declare it, therefore we decide animals place, and we say animals aren't a part of society."

With that same reasoning it could be said "we declare all animals should be cruelly abused, tortured, and massacred." But surely you wouldn't accept that as sufficient justification to do so.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
@Geo: I don't actually believe in the side I took on this debate. I am a moral cosmopolitan.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Vote :p
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
This was basically a really bad version of the Sept/Oct resolution.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Native Americans are legally under society and are subject to US laws. They have contractually agreed to join the society.

It doesn't matter if animals are from the homeland or not. They don't consent to join human society.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"There is no moral obligation by the government to protect people who are not part of our community (hence why we turn away illegal immigrants)."

Animals are from the homeland, not illegal immigrants. Also, we protect indians on the reservations and they aren't part of society. I believe animals are a part of society and play a big role.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
1000 character limit.

I can't even write a proper contention in 1000 characters.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Yup. I didn't realize that until just now, lol. This debate is pointless.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
10 minute rounds? Wow.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
8803royalpaladinTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It's Royal...
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
8803royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
8803royalpaladinTied
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: DAAAAA POOPY
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
8803royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh come on pro. You just lost to the social contract, the a.ss-end of a really crappy branch of moral reasoning. How does that make you feel?