The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/12/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 856 times Debate No: 94645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hello. I am doing several debates on the Big Issues. This is my third. The topic for this debate is animal rights. Should we give animals rights? That is what we will discuss in this debate. For the first round, I will explain the rules and my opponent will accept. I am for animal rights while my opponent is against animal rights. For the second round, I will place arguments and my opponent will provide a counter-framework. For the third round, my opponent and I will rebut the arguments placed in round 2. Please do not forfeit rounds. Should any rounds be forfeited, voters should be aware of that and penalize that person by voting for the other person. Good luck to to person who may accept this debate!


I accept the debate, good luck


1. No FF's

2. Sources can be posted in an outside link

Okay, that's it.


1. Animal: any organism of the Kingdom Animalia ] not insects, sponges, you get what I mean, those animals like plankton.

2. Rights: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as lawand ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

My framework will be centered around Utilitarianism. If it helps more than if it does not help, we do it. Not like the harm principle if it harms one person, we stop, but this is if it better for everyone than worse, we do it.

Argument 1: Utilitarianism

What is the definiton Utilitarianism? It is this.
Utilitarianism: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people
This basically means that if there are more good things than bad things, more benefits than diadvantages, they do it. Okay so, what are the good things of animals not having rights, and animals in zoos


1. We can have animal testing, because animal testing is very important for us humans to have cures, medical issues, much more. This research has saved many lives, even animal lives, also humans. [12], [13], [14], [15]

2. Humans eat. We need protein. Also meat and seafood are good. If animals have rights, that means that we cannot eat meat and seafood, which is a major source of protein, because many people don't eat lots of beans because meat tastes better. [16]

3. Many animals will become extinct. Making zoos will not only save animals, it will make people have a chance looking at them.

4. There are so many things you can’t do if animals have rights, like you can’t fish, hunt, learn things in zoos, go to zoos, and it is hard to study from animals. [11]

There are just so many advantages for animals not having rights, but if animals do have rights, that means that we can’t fish, hunt, eat meat or seafood, study for animals, go to zoos, and the endangered animals will all die. If we want animals like pandas still to be alive, the zoo is the only choice.

Argument 2: Animals will become extinct

This is kinda like my fourth advantage, but it will be explained more.

Yes, endangered animals will be extinct.

Lets take an example of a siberian tiger.

“The Siberian –or Amur- tiger is considered a critically endangered species with the primary threats to its’ survival in the wild being poaching and habitat loss from intensive logging and development.”

My opponent can say that we can stop. But sadly we can’t. Fur coats are not only pretty, they are also very warm, good for the winter. So the tiger will soon become extinct. But if there are zoos, then we can at least know there are some tigers that are safe, but bored in zoos. Even if there are no tigers left, there will be in zoos. These tigers will have babies also. This is the only way we can stop this. Yes, many people are trying to protect tigers from hunting, but there is two more problems.

The first problem is habit loss.

“Tigers are extremely territorial though so they will fight other animals and other tigers that invade their space. This problem has become more of an issue due to the natural environment for tigers being destroyed at an alarming rate, as a male tiger may have a territory of up to 60 to 100 square kilometers, while females up to 20 square kilometers, as this numbers change according with the habitat and subspecies. As a result they have to venture into new territories to be able to find adequate amounts of food.” [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

This is a big space. However, tigers can’t use this much. People build homes, and there territory will be destroyed. This means that they fight with other tigers, but because the spaces are getting smaller, they have to fight, and one will probably die. [9], [10]

The last problem is food. There is not a lot of food in Siberia or any foods that a tiger can eat, like deer or rabbits. The tigers will soon starve. Many tigers even died because of this. If they are in zoos though, they can have food easily.


There are tons of great advantages if we ban animal rights!!! Therefore, please vote for Con Thank you.
Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1


As you can see, my opponent clearly violated the rules. Round 1 was FOR ACCEPTANCE ONLY. However, my opponent decided to place down some arguments. Anyway, I will place down my arguments. Animal rights are important for several reasons. First of all, what are animal rights? Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests"such as the need to avoid suffering"should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings (1). Animals are just as alive as we are. Why does that mean that they shouldn't have the same basic needs as us? Animals need food and water like us. They need rest and a home like us. Animals have much more in common with us the an we think. It would be very cruel to deny animals these rights. We would not like it if a higher power treated humans like dirt. This is an argument of common sense. Please vote for Pro!




First of all, I am sorry that I violated that rule, in the third round I won't post my rebuttals, and only the conclusion in my last round. My opponent can't post his defense also next round, if he does, then I get to post my defense also. I will go onto my rebuttals of my opponent's argument in this round.


My opponent agrees with my definition at first when he said that animals are non-human animals. Then he suddenly says that animals are the same as us. In the definition of animal in the debate, it says that human does not count as animal, as it says in Merriam Webster. My opponent can't have a definiton change in the last round, or else it would be unfair because I can't make new arguments, and it is bad conduct, and you should lose if you suddenly change the definitions in the last round, then there is no point to debate about it. My opponent also says that animals are the same as us, they both need food and water, and they need to rest. My opponent says that animals are much more common that we think. Not true. Animals are different from humans because most animals are dumber then us, most animals can't use thumbs, and most animals can't communicate, and humans rule the world. Humans can use technology [1] Humans are more unique, and better than the other animals. Also, humans aren't animals, so we can't say that they are the same as us, or more common that we think. The comparison that my opponent makes of a higher power treating us like dirt is WRONG. First of all, it is not possible, as humans are the highest, and smarter and better than other animals, and humans are not animals, as it says in the definitions, so Pro CANNOT make a comparison with an animal and a non-animal being the same thing, as they are different things, and cannot be compared like that. It does not make an common sense. Just because animals drink and eat doesn't mean they are the same as us. My opponent uses wikipedia as a source, but he does not give any link, only the main heading to wikipedia. That is a bad source, as the main head of wikipedia does not have any source or relationship to animal rights, and the topic that we are debating about. My opponent says that animals also need to avoid suffering. Then what about poachers, or animal testing? We can't ban them, as animal testing is good for us humans. As I rebutted all of my opponent's arguments, vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Utilitarianism sounds pretty selfish to me. We should let animas suffer in order to help ourselves. That does not sound too good for me. My idea of animal rights is to treat any animals you decide to own with care. I think this definition has been kind of confused over this entire debate. It is true that we need to fish or hunt for certain animals for food, but keeping them in zoos is something different. We should not have zoos, as it causes certain harm to animals. We people are the ones who are invading these animals' homes, and we repay them by placing them in zoos?

Animals will become extinct because of humans. We are very selfish and only want to achieve our personal goals. We really don't seem to care. Habitat loss is the fault of humans. We are cutting down trees for wood, mining for gold and other precious minerals all while destroying the natural habitat of animals. As for food, that is also because of humans as well. We are probably hunting their primary food source, so there is nothing for them to eat.

In conclusion, animal rights are very important. There may be some cases when we have to hunt for food or in self-defense, but that's about it. Why should we destroy their habitat all for the cause of looking for gold? Why chop down trees for energy when we have renewable energy and can use the sun and wind to gather energy? Why?


This will be for my conclusion

My opponent says that Util sounds selfish for him. I never said to let them suffer, I said that the advantages for humans is if we ban animal rights, and I gave tons of reasons to that. My opponent says that the definition was confuse over the entire debate. He doesn't say why it was confused, I said it in round 1, and he never argued over it, when he could have done so, and now it is round 3, but he didn't. My opponent concedes that we should eat meat, which harms the right of life, which means animals do not have right. My opponent says that animals are extinct of humans. That's why we have zoos to protect them. And, I showed that animals also die, such as the tiger because of habit loss, and the lack of food. And, the lack of food also. My opponent says that we are probably hunting their food source. I showed that Siberia has almost no animals, it's cold, and they eat a lot, so there are no animals. We chop down trees for paper, and for houses, for use.

I showed that my opponent's arguments where wrong, and my opponent concedes all of my arguments. That's the it of my conclusion, and please vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 3
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro, Con made arguments in first round (albeit by mistakenly not paying attention, happens). Sources: Con. Pro uses wikipedia once. Even if I ignore the fact that Wiki is a bad source, Con uses way more instead of just one. Args: generally poor all around TBH. The arguments are riddled with red herrings, screeds, semantics, and even bare assertions in a lot of cases. For both of you I recommend the book "How to become a really good pain in the @$$" to help you sharpen your debate skills. That being said, overall depth of argument, and knowledge of topic shows a lot. That's in cons favor. While Pro does have good arguments, they're not taken very far, and are just asserted, not even with any citations in a lot of cases. Granted, Con does the same, but there were at least some citations, and shown to not be assertions. Generally, my own bias as liberal is Pro's advantage. Today though, args to Con. Good debate guys. Grammar: wash, nothing too noticeable b