March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

RebuttalsEthics and ReasonThis debate is not about animals having rights, it is about animals having the right against human exploitation. I did not mention that invertebrates do not have a right against exploitation; for this debate it is not the subject. The reason is irrelevant to the resolution. As you accepted this resolution and the definitions, I request Con to remain subject to the rules and definitions instead of questioning them. You could have questioned them when I presented them initially. I am not arbitrarily assuming anything. This is absolutely irrelevant to the debate. If you still further protest, I can include in this definition. Con is randomly assuming I'm saying invertebrates cannot be free of human exploitation; I believe they should be, but once more, it is irrelevant to the resolution. I am not discriminating them and Con is subject to the terms and definitions. Why is Con randomly assuming that I am saying invertebrates can be subject to discrimination? Just because this DEBATE is not about them does not mean I am prejudiced against them. This is not even an argument; this is rather merely questioning and targeting the definitions, which should have been done in a PM. My reason for excluding sentient invertebrates also was because of the ongoing debate on whether certain arthropods feel pain, and various studies. I accept that octopuses et cetera feel pain, but I merely wanted to avoid scientific controversy. I request voters to penalize conduct here. I would also like to say that what I am implying here is that one animal's life is equal to one human's life. Con is interpreting this as meaning one animal cannot be sacrificed for a thousand humans; but this is one life against one life. Animals cannot be used, as they are not human property. In addition, rationality is not the only thing which allows a being to be free from suffering. So this is your point: a non-rational being can be used and subjected as property even if the being can feel or suffer. This is an illogical argument. And Con is ignoring the definition of exploitation. Population control for the animals' benefit is ethical, but for human benefit, it is completely unethical. Animals are not human property, and this is the stressed point. Hunting Once more, I have to define exploitation. Exploitation is "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly for the beneficial result of the exploiter." If it is beneficial to animals, then it is not exploitation. Hunting for human pleasure is exploitation. Con is only arguing how hunting is beneficial to animals, but the forms of hunting that are beneficial for humans alone, i.e. hunting for exploitation, is what I am arguing is morally unethical. Vegetarianism Once more, the Kalahari bushmen are not being unfair or prejudiced, as it is necessary for their survival; hence, this is not unfairness when they have no other choice. So let us move to comparison of veganism/vegetarianism and a non-vegetarian diet in an average urban lifestyle. As seen above, the total price for an average vegan in the United States is $11.15; for a vegetarian, $12.45. Compare with a pescetarian and a meat-eater. [1] According to another website which I will source:"Today's chicken breasts sell for around $5 a pound, and one chicken breast filet gives you about 24 grams of protein per serving. Compare that with black beans, another source of protein; you can buy a can (approximately 1 pound) of black beans for about a buck, which will provide you with about 24 grams of protein per serving, as well. The average American eats about 50 pounds of chicken per year, according to PBS. That adds up to about $250 a year just for chicken. Or, if you're a vegetarian, that'd be about $50 a year for black beans. In this case, you'd save $200 per year by going vegetarian. Let's play the same comparison game with steak versus tofu. A sirloin steak costs about $5.99 per pound and contains 23 grams of protein per 4 ounces. Tofu is about $2.50 a pound and gives you about 28 grams of protein in 4 ounces, according to one online grocery store. The average American eats about 65 pounds of steak per year. That means your yearly spending on steak could amount to about $400 or more, depending on the cuts of beef you like to buy. Compare that with about $163 a year for tofu. By going vegetarian, you'd save $237 or more per year." [2]Pre-clinical trials I clearly specified and explained how in-vitro human tissue and synthetic skin were more useful than animal testing. In-vitro cell culture techniques are actually very accurate. [3] The modular immune in-vitro construct [MIMIC] uses human cells to create a model of the human immune system on which the efficacy of new vaccines and other compounds may be tested, replacing some steps of the vaccine development process that would otherwise be performed on animals. This process is faster and more flexible than previous methods. [4] The MIMIC system is very efficient and purportedly better than animal-tested models for disease cures. According to Wayne Koff, vice-president of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, the MIMIC system can revolutionize vaccinology. Over to you, Con!References [1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl... [3] R E Hester R M Harrison et al. Alternatives To Animal Testing (Issues in Environmental Science and Technology) Royal Society of Chemistry; 1 edition (June 7, 2006) ISBN 978-0-85404-211-1. [4] http://tinyurl.com...;