Debate.org: animal rights Debates

Animal Rights

2013-05-16T13:27:29-08:00

(Debating Period) Well my question is this: Should humans interfere when animal rights are concerned? For example, if you saw, or were made aware of an animal being mistreated, should you, and would you interfere? The situation that's made me raise this issue is as follows. A relative of mine has just moved in to a new home, and has found that a cat comes to visit the garden occasionally. I saw this cat today, and I think that it is ill in some way. It is very scruffy, and constatnly twitches it's head. It is clearly very young, and extremely skinny. It looks scruffy, but wen you stroke it (which I did) you can feel that it is skin and bone. What I want to do is call the animal protection, just to make them aware so that it could maybe get checked. (RSPCA in the UK). However, others have a different argument. They say that I should not do this, as it may put my relative that's moved in a difficult position with her new neighbours. And that I should not interfere with this cat, a

Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

2012-03-26T17:36:44-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

This debate is for 16kadams tournament, round one.
I am affirming the resolution, my opponent is negating.
First round is for acceptance, everything else is for the debate.

I wish him luck.

Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

2012-10-07T04:30:37-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolved: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Good debate, Lars. Hope to do a good one on Insider Trading in a few days.

Debate ends at 45:30. Feel free to skip through the prep time periods.

Pro/Affirmative: Wallstreetatheist (blue shirt and Americanish)
Con/Negative: larztheloser (black sweatshirt and New Zealandish--think Flight of the Conchords)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7oRtDkf9M

animal rights

2012-01-31T12:02:49-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Affirmative Cases: a philosophical approach to defining animal rights. One of the single biggest issues in rounds so far for the Sept/Oct topic has been the definition of what animal rights would look like "in the real world". Defining precisely what animal rights we're talking about has been a source of great confusion and a number of rounds have been greatly muddled by squabbling over definitions. Specifically for the affirmative, defining animal rights has been a particularly troublesome problem when the negative pressures for an admission that affirming means an end to eating meat or important medical testing. However, there are a number of ways to frame the resolution in a more fair and convincing way. In the majority of our affirmative cases, we defined animal rights in a very abstract and broad sense. Rather than saying animals have a right to life or to roam free, we adopted a philosophical definition of rights as the manifestation of intrinsic w

The FAIL Debate: Animal Rights

2011-06-11T13:24:03-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

The point of the FAIL debate is to see how bad our arguments can get. Off topic, terrible, insulting, this is the point of the FAIL debate.

I will be arguing for animal rights, Con will argue against.

Also thanks to Illegalcombatant for the idea.

R1 for introductions.

Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.

2011-08-30T12:04:22-08:00

(Voting Period) First round will be for acceptance, following rounds for debate. Obviously, this is the current LD resolution. Let's try to debate it that way. Sources are important, but not overwhelmingly important. Logic, reason, etc. should be the grounds for compelling arguments. Kritiks are fine, so long as you do not willfully misinterpret the resolution or wage an assault on the dictionary. In our efforts we ought to mutually endeavor to test the strengths of our ideas, rather than quibble over phraseology and definitions. I would strongly prefer some LD experience in my opponent, but it isn't required. A couple of notes though: 1) If you are still in high school, consider the ramifications of putting your arguments online. (This is my polite way of saying that even if you are 18 and in high school, don't accept this debate.) 2) There is a minimum age of 18 for this debate, principally because I have as of late been disgusted with some of nonsense our younge

That society ought to recognize animal rights

2012-11-12T00:37:34-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

This is for the second official DDO Tournament, and this is the second round. It is a great honor to be debating Zaradi again, and to have this oppertunity to discuss this really important topic.

Once again I don't think either of us will really try to cheat with our definitions. "Society" is to be taken in the most general possible sense, so pointing out specific people who have better things to do than care about animal rights is not sufficient to carry the motion. Generally this motion is about whether animal rights should be recognised and not about who should recognise them. "Animal" shall include all members of the scientific animal kingdom except humans, who are presumed to have rights already. "Rights" "are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states." (http