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

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 11/15/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,897 times Debate No: 19293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




I strongly affirm the resolution that states: It is moral for humans to recognize these rights.
Con will be arguing that it is not natural for humans to recognize animal rights.
For some background clarity:
animal rights: rights (as to fair and humane treatment) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all animals
expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

Round 1 is acceptance
Round 2 is cases
Round 3 is rebuttal/conclusion

Thank you, I cannot wait until my opponent accepts.


I accept, sorry for the delay, I had to go to school. Also I only believe in animal rights to a certain extent, domestic animals get equal ts, wild ones do not.
Debate Round No. 1


It is moral for humans to recognize animal rights due to the following two contentions: animals can feel pain, thus it is immoral to infringe upon their well-being, as well as animal rights would not only benefit the animal world, but the human world as well.
Contention 1: animals can feel pain, thus it is immoral to infringe upon their well-being.
As humans, we are subject to morality. Humans feel guilty or ashamed when they commit actions that are frowned upon in modern society, such as stealing, abusing, and degrading others. Therefore, just as the feeling of guilt or shame as a result of inflicting harm upon another human, it is immoral for humans to abuse and disregard the rights of animals and their individualism. Morality is defined by principles of etiquette and standards of current living. However the epicenter of morality is traced far back, to where the only principle that was really frowned upon was physical abuse. The definition of moral is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". How is the connection tied between recognizing the rights of animals and the rights of humans being the same? There are penalties in society for both: you may be put in jail for causing harm to another human being, as well as causing harm to other animals. However, even if animals and humans both had harm inflicted upon them, why would violence toward animals be frowned upon just like violence toward humans? The common object that both feel is pain. Pain is defined as "a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leading to evasive action". Now that it is understood that both humans animals are both exposed to physical violence, both protected by laws, and both feel pain, it is immoral for humans to recognize animal rights, because animals and humans rights are so similar in today's society, and because humans and animals share the same consequences of infringement.

Contention 2: animal rights would not only benefit the animal world, but the human world as well.
Animal rights are perceived by most as " the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings". A human's brain is specifically built so that the individual can be adaptive to their environment. What is derived from the rights of animals being respected, is humans may become more peaceful or respectful of each other. The public media wants the average consumer to idolize celebrities, by buying their products and doing whatever the celerity is doing. The same idea applies for respect of animal rights. If animal rights were not regarded, then the world would be a much more violent, abusive place. The logical explanation for why humans find it moral to recognize animal's rights is because of the concern of their population, and the pity humans feel as a result of the killing and destruction of innocent inhabitants of the Earth. From a more radical perspective, the human world would also benefit from animal rights by idolizing pets. Many animals are affected by the pollution and industrialization humans bestow upon the Earth. If animal rights wouldn't be recognized, the whole earth may already be colonized by humans, only worsening the current issues humans have with the environment. Consideration of animal rights may also benefit the human world in subtle ways, such as children becoming interested in biology, and becoming healthier by stepping outside and observing the ecosystems and natural features of the world. To conclude, humans who morally recognize animal rights benefit the human world in many ways, thus creating a positive relationship. For these reasons, I urge a pro ballot.


I will refute your claims because the BoP is on you, because you are arguing the unknown, as of now I am arguing that same as the current standards, so you prove it to the audience, and I will attempt to disprove.

"animals can feel pain, thus it is immoral to infringe upon their well-being."

So do people dying, yet they it is still not considered murder if you pull the plug. Also if something feels pain is it a reason to give it rights? There are already laws helping domestic animals. They get almost = rights already, but since they feel pain then they get rights? Well when a lion kills an antelope then it would have to be arrested under your plan because if they get = rights then they would have to be jailed for murder. So giving them = rights would get them in trouble for surviving. Also an animal isn't a human, so dont they technically need diffrent rights, not = ones. They are not capable of human thought according to modern reasearch so they do not need our rights. I have gone hunting, and when you take down the animal you dont feel 'guilty' so your argument there is false, you only feel that way towards people or pets, not wild animals. Also pain is an emotional thing more than a pain nerve one. The International Association for the Study of Pain decreed that "The emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors in the body." O.K if you are dragged to a doctors office crying and saying you dont want a shot it will hurt less then doing it with normal mood. That is common knowlage because when you are freaking out your brain might overexagerate the pain. And animals dont have many moods to my knowlage, so they do feel pain, but on a lesser scale. They also have a higher pain tolerance. I am not advocating go hit a dog, but I am saying that just cause they can feel pain doesnt mean that they should have = rights.

" animal rights would not only benefit the animal world, but the human world as well. "

This is false. If you geve them rights then a company would require more regulation which would raise costs and lower job growth. So it hurts human economics. Also it would make it a crime to trap, or kill pegions even if they are ruining your property. Even if they ruined a building killing them would result in murder, and trapping them would violate the 8th ammendment. So it would mess up everything in that sense. Also it would illegilise hunting, so even if you think that is bad then think again. That would ruin the sport that people enjoy, so it would hurt that realm, also hunting is enviromentally freindly. So it would make it one less enviroment benifit. So for those of you who disagree with the hunting thing I will digress a little to back up that point:

Hunters are the most conservation-friendly people out there. They are good stewards of the environment," said Joe Hosmer, vice president of the Safari Club International, a foundation recognized as a worldwide leader in wildlife-conservation and education programs.

And some environmentalists agree. [1]

Overpopulation has detrimental effects that ripple through the entire ecosystem," explains Inkley. "Overgrazing by the white-tailed deer changes the entire plant species and composition of the forest. For instance, deer can eat all the red maple, so species that rely on the red maple dwindle."

Another major problem with species overpopulation is that it increases interaction with humans, often in unfavorable ways. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that there are more than 1.5 million deer-vehicle collisions each year, and about 150 of those end up being fatal to humans [1] so hunting helps keep that from happening.;[1]

"What is derived from the rights of animals being respected, is humans may become more peaceful or respectful of each other. "

I do not see how animal rights would make people more respectful. Please explain in a diffrent way next round.

"The logical explanation for why humans find it moral to recognize animal's rights is because of the concern of their population, and the pity humans feel as a result of the killing and destruction of innocent inhabitants of the Earth."

So now you blame overpopulated humans. Well stopping the growth could shatter the economy. Thats why China is changing the law to a 2 child policy so their population doesnt plumment, shrinking the workforce. So you are now advocating "save the world kill the humans". Obviously you dont mean that, but you say it indirectly in this sentence.

" Many animals are affected by the pollution and industrialization humans bestow upon the Earth. If animal rights wouldn't be recognized, the whole earth may already be colonized by humans, only worsening the current issues humans have with the environment. "

I'm going to use the ronald reagan quote: "there he goes again". In a debate with Jimmy carter :P
So you are still advocating enviromental hazards. We wont colinize the whole world because the goverments of the world would ban together before that happened. The UN may make colonies on the moon, the poles of mars because there is water there, and maybe a moon of jupiter ( the name has slipped out of my mind). All of these places have water (ICE) and the jupiter moon possibly has life under the ice. So the overpopulation thing is false.

"animal rights may also benefit the human world in subtle ways, such as children becoming interested in biology"

Please explain in more depth because kids will get interested in it through school. Even if they didnt have school people get interested or they do not. People like me who are more history and politics leaning will probably not be interested by biology, no matter what. So it is not the enviroment that makes you interested, but you personally. No laws will change that. So to sum that up you either like it or you do not, laws are irrelavant.

Since I have more space I will make an argument of my own so you have something to go against.
Making animal rights would make it illegal to test animals. You think that is cruel, but it saves lives. Testing a ribbit with a new drug is a good thing, if the rabbit dies then no human lives will be lost, if it lives then it is probably safe. If made illegal then you may be taking expirimental drugs that would kill you, so animal testing is benificial. For more info read this article:

So remember, I only advocate = rights towards domestic animals, not wild ones or in ones for scientific testings. So dont go hit a dog.
Debate Round No. 2


A person dying is a totally irrelevant case to my statement. A person dying is involuntary, however it is a natural process, which cannot be altered or changed. Something that feels pain should be given rights, because it is immoral for a human to afflict pain upon an innocent animal. If there was no moral standard for the care and respect of animals in general, wouldn't there be an immense amount of animal-killing every day? A wild animal killing another wild animal is also a different and an irrelevant contradiction to my statement. A human eating other animals isn't illegal because it was part of our nature to do so. A study on fossil remains on prehistoric humans revealed that "early man was neither so carnivorous nor so herbivorous as some previous studies have indicated, but instead had a more balanced diet." So, prehistoric people were not influenced by any religion, law, or etiquette, however still ate meat. It was natural for them to do so. Same concept applies for the "wild animals eating each other" statement. You cannot regulate what was natural. A lion wasn't raised a specific way, just so he could hunt animals and "disobey the standard rules of morality". Lions naturally eat other animals, so that is why no laws are enforced upon that. Going hunting for wild animals is totally defined by your own experiences and opinions. But, shooting a squirrel, which there are so many in this world, of course would not make you feel guilty. But how about shooting a panda? Or for that matter, any endangered animal? A normal human being would probably feel much more moral influence in shooting a panda than a squirrel, or any other common animal. Lastly, if animals could feel pain and didn't deserve rights, how would you know when the animal's body cannot take the pain or damage physically and shuts down? They cannot communicate with us, however a right would ensure that no animals would get killed or hurt. To conclude, plants do not feel pain. Nobody will arrest a human if he rips off a leaf off of a plant. A plant cannot feel pain, but ripping a leaf off would affect them negatively, but not drastically. Hurting animals would drastically affect them in a negative manner, and the hurt is connected through the pain that both humans and animals feel.

From your case, animal rights has such little effect on the world that there is really no validity for your statement. People hunting? How many people hunt, as opposed to the food chain, which we cannot live without? Imagine a group of lions being hunted until extinction in some hunger-infested country in Africa. Killing all the lions would completely destroy the food chain, and affect the people's chances of survival. Your case of hunting is simply built on pleasure and joy. The benefits I insist are for living. Animal rights hurting human economics has is in such minuscule proportions that the argument once more is vague. The top ten causes of unemployment, according to Economy Watch, are : "Recessions
Inflation, disability, undulating business cycles, changes in tastes as well as alterations in the climatic conditions, attitude towards employers, willingness to work, perception of employees, employee values, discriminating factors in the place of work (may include discrimination on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, color and race),and ability to look for employment." My main point is that animal rights would change the moral standards of human interaction with animals. Animals would be respected more, which would ultimately be a positive thing for the world.

Humans would develop more respect for each other by reflecting their moral standards in society. Suppose this: two young boys (who are friends) are walking through a forest. One sees a squirrel and offers to throw a rock at it, and the other boy responds by saying his Mom taught him not to do so. This boy is instantly thought of as considerate and peaceful, correct? The other is perceived as much more ill mannered and mean. Through animal rights, humans can to a certain depth start to appreciate each other by practicing respect for other inhabitants of this world.

The argument I am presenting which I did not address earlier is the reason why humans wouldn't populate the entire earth. You said correctly that the UN would not let that happen. However, what would be one of the main arguments for this? Animals, of course; we would ultimately doom ourselves if there were no other animals on this planet besides us. So, that is why animal rights are so important; they help regulate the human population from inhabiting the entire world, under the policies of United Nations.

In our government, killing someone intentionally will obviously bring you in trouble with the law. However, if someone was to break into your house, and you pulled out a gun and shot the robber dead, you would face minimal trouble with the law, if any. So, the same concept is applied for testing animals for scientific research. To cure cancer, we cannot simply give the medicine to another human. Killing animals for scientific research should be extremely regulated and checked on; however for the sake of health and survival testing animals should be perfectly valid.

It is moral for humans to recognize animal rights. As a solution, all animals should have rights for their protection of well being and prosperity. The killing and harming of animal rights should be limited to scientific, strictly for health research. Thank you for the debate and I urge a PRO ballot.


16kadams forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
hey I might have to forefeit because I am traveling today, so it is a easy win for you. I Had a really good closing, but I wont be able to respond. Sorry.
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
That will probably be fine. I'll be on break then.
Posted by cameronl35 6 years ago
Hey YYW, would you like to debate this topic in the future? I am currently in LD but I can't debate this topic til after Dec. 11th...just in case you would like to
Posted by YYW 6 years ago
Interesting debate. While thus far CON seems to only wish to beg the question and cite, of all things, FOX news and Ronald Reagan, PRO plays on the emotional aspects of human-animal interaction. Neither side, thus far, seems to have directly addressed the moral component of the resolution and thus far neither side has even come close to addressing the resolution. Pro, however, has alluded to an eventual moral justification -unlike CON, who thus far hasn't really accomplished much of anything.

Some advice to both: recognize that this is a value based debate, and should be approached from that perspective. While its good that you seem interested in LD debate, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing this. While this isn't the best resource out there, it may be a good place to start:

Best of luck to you both and I look foreword to seeing this round play out!
Posted by cameronl35 6 years ago
logic, when you discuss animal rights you refer to non-human animals
Posted by logicrules 6 years ago
Gee, I though humans were mammals, which are animals...go figure. Wonder if I can get a refund from the Jesuits.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
um no i do not think animals deserve = rights as humans. Because that would force everyone to be vegitarian and illegilise hunting. I will accept later if this debate is still here.
Posted by logicrules 6 years ago
Aren't Humans Animals?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 6 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes Pro for forfeit and Pro adequately refuted all of Con's arguments while at the end of the day some of Pro's still stand