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

Animal 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 54370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




U post your argument first explaining why you think animal rights is good.


In the modern world that we live in, most people walk around blindly, while eating meat, wearing fur, and using animal-tested merchandise. However, these people do not know the torture that animals have to go through in order for us to have things that we could easily live without, while these animals can"t live without them.

There are always little children who beg their parents to go see the circus to see tigers jump through flaming wheels, a juggling bear, or lions standing on their hind feet, dancing with their paws. Unlike the human acrobats and clowns who choose to spend life this way, thousands of animals in circuses are forced to do humiliating tricks with bull hooks, whips, clubs, and electric prods. Each of these circus animals have to spend up to 11 months in a tiny boxcar, and kept in chained enclosures. Separated from their friends and family, they live a living nightmare. Very few laws exist enforcing care for animals in the circus, and if any, they are incredibly vague and poorly enforced. Also, there are public safety and health violations, where animals are driven mad and attempt to escape the captivity, seriously harming people in the audience or the animal trainers. In order for us to have a two-hour show of "fun," most animals will pay their lives.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1



Seeing how no definitions were presented on the part of Pro, the definitions of Con will stick for the rest of the round.

Right: Legal contract granting and restricting capabilities (SEP 2010)


Value: Justice, defined as the administration of what is just or fair (Webster 2010)

Value Criterion:

VC: Utilitarianism, defined as granting the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (Princeton 2009)

Observation 1: Animals do not possess the ability to create contracts. This means that they cannot possess rights, according to my definition of a right. Not recognizing animal rights creates a utilitarian benefit. Roger Scruton said in 2000, that "Animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights", including utility toward their benefit. "Rights in some way stem from the capacity for sophisticated abstract thought. They come from an implicit contract made between the members of society, and even the smartest animals are unable to comprehend the concept of the social contract. (Kant, on Contractualism)"
Any "bad thing" we can do to animals is morally neutral because they don"t have emotions or the ability to create rights at the level humans do. (Cognitive Structure of Emotions) Roger Scruton argues that rights imply obligations. Animals cannot fulfill any obligations, and therefore cannot be granted rights.
IMPACT: It would not make sense, under utility toward Justice, to recognize animal rights. Having rights implies that you are able to enter into a social contract, which animals cannot do. Any society who recognizes members as having rights who do not also have obligations, undermines its own utility and therefore Justice.


I. The usefulness of Animal Experimentation

Researchers trying to treat and prevent diseases have depended on animal testing for decades. According to the Foundation of Biomedical Research, "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century." Animal testing requires that we don"t recognize animal rights. Animal research led to the development of anesthetics, insulin, transplants, and vaccines. The Department of Health and Human services states that "animal experimentation has increased our average lifespan by 23.5 years. It is also key to cancer research and AIDS treatment. "You can"t be for aids research AND animal rights" (Americans for Medical Progress 2011)

The British Royal Society and the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S National Academy of Sciences argue that "virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way", and that "even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas."

Thx much!


animals are cute and therefore they have rights bc ANIMALS ARE HUMANS

lol i'm going let Nathaniel win because he is amazing at debating and he will win anyways :) byee
Debate Round No. 2


I'm a little sad to see my opponent just "gave up" so easily. My opponent is far from bad, and I would have enjoyed a continuation of this round. Nonetheless, because she forfeited. I will just sum up my arguments with three main points.

1. Animals can not enter into social contract, and that is the definition of a "right"

2. Animal rights would hault both Aids research and cancer research.

3. Animal rights would hurt our economy due to the loss of food production. (No more hamburgers lol)

I believe that for these three reasons we all should consider the Con stance of this resolution, that Animals do not deserve rights. Thanks!



1. You win

2. You win

3. You win

Vote Con!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nathaniel2840 7 years ago
lighting bolt I would be happy to post this debate again. Give me a couple days to finish some other debates and then I'll post it ;)
Posted by Jonbonbon 7 years ago
Puppy love.
Posted by Taylor-Magnuson 7 years ago
Wow... Pro's arguments started off unstable with no support or definitions, which allowed Con to so strongly attack Pro's arguments. This was a VERY disappointing debate on Pro's side. Even if you know you already lost to Con, that doesn't mean you just give up. Ever heard the saying "fake it till you make it"? Well, Its true. Do you think professional debaters, or Lawyers just give up on their case because they know they've lost? HECK NO! If they do that, they get fired. Treat this as if you completely believe in it, even if you don't. Other than that, again Con did an amazing and fabulous job with definitions, arguments, and citations. Great job.
Posted by lightingbolt50 7 years ago
God dammit katie was a let down. Nathaniel2840, can you please repost this debate and let someone with actual debating skill take it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Taylor-Magnuson 7 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was amazing! ^-^
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could've won that with a little dose of moral subjectivity. She shouldn't undersell herself.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.