The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
tonig has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 103431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




when do we have rights or when are rights given? Its not just because we have logic and reasoning we can have rights. Its there protects us. The question to ask isn't "Can animals reason?" the question to ask is "Can animals suffer?/Are animals suffering"
giving them rights doesn't necessarily mean giving them the equal or identical rights as us. equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration!!!


The Proposition side hasn't actually specified the "definition" of 'Animal Rights', therefore, I myself will define what 'Animal Rights' mean in this term of debate.

Definition of 'Animal Rights': Rights 'believed' to belong to animals to be free from human care, scientific research involving them, hunting, and many other kinds of services to human.

The definition I mentioned above basically involves different kinds of rights of what humans have. Now I would like to start with my rebuttals.

The Proposition side mentioned: Equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration.

Yes, that is, in fact, true, however, this fact varies a lot, and you cannot just admit the fact that it requires equal consideration because some are, while some aren't.

Also, the Proposition side mentioned: "Can animals reason?" the question to ask is "Can animals suffer?"
"Are animals suffering?"

Again, this varies for each and one of the animal variant. While it is true animals cannot reason to human, this also states that they cannot have the rights of having to ask humans or in other words, express their feelings. Moreover, you have to consider the fact that they are not exactly "Rational" which is another term you need to earn or show in order to obtain rights. Also, some animals are actually receiving amazing treatment that they cannot ever get if they were to have rights to stay away from humans as they wish.

I would like to state that equal consideration is totally different from what this topic is about, and yes, I believe that is off-topic in this debate. I would like to ask the Proposition side to clarify the definition of "Equal Consideration" on the next round, and I hope the Proposition side will begin to actually send out proper reasons to support their details. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Prime_Time 2 years ago
I hope the Instigator realizes this debate is clearly easier for him to win. However, I will still be trying my best to win.
Posted by Prime_Time 3 years ago
There are certain reasons to support the opposition, however, this will be quite an unfair debate due to the fact that it lacks reasons to support the opposition side.
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
This is actually a tautological stance you have. If your burden of proof is to show that animals suffer, it cannot be disagreed with and that wouldn't make it a good debate.
Posted by RandomTruth 3 years ago
what's your point here? It's obvious animals suffer - who's going to disagree with you!?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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