Animals can be deserving of Personhood

The Pro has made several very distinct and understandable arguments on the philosophy of personhood being given to animals. However, where my opponent leaves room for disputably (as I as well feel that every being is entitled to a peaceful and happy life) is in the use of the word "Can". Now I do not wish to say that animals are not deserving of peaceful and happy lives, which I am assuming the Pro agrees with. The problem with having animals under the same domain as people when it comes to "unalienable rights" as being "Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property," must be dealt with on an un-philosophical basis. -Let us consider the true reality of the Pro"s argument: In a hypothetical world where the realisation of animals right to personhood has given animals access to such unalienable rights. -Life: As I said earlier, everything living is deserving of life. From the moment they are conceived and begin to grow, that entity is deserving of life as it has managed to survive be it on its own, or in the company of other living things and thus is "worthy" of life. However, now that animals are given such rights they are considered equals to us ( And should my opponent say otherwise to animal/human equality upon reading further into my arguments please keep note of it. ), how are these "new persons" given protection of their lives? Are hunters, ranchers, whole industries devoted to, in the bluntest sense, the distribution and selling of lifeless animals now to be charged with murder or hate crimes? Granted, animal rights in general strive to protect animals from being wrongly harmed by human beings. But now upon the acceptance of animals as individual "persons", are we obligated to protect them from industries, and in some cases themselves? -Liberty: As philosophical definitions of the word "liberty" are namely political, I would like to bring this point into the debate as well. "Liberty" is defined as: Right to choose:"the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force Freedom:"freedom from captivity or slavery Basic right:"a political, social, and economic right that belongs to the citizens of a state or to all people Now, In a world where animals have been given "personhood" they are now considered individuals who are free to act as they please, but within the boundaries of the law. They are now no longer captive as Zoo"s and farms are required to set free their inhabitants as "persons" are not kept in zoo"s. Finally, animals are now given rights, economic rights, and the right to become a "citizen". The Pro has provided evidence that animals are both conscious and rational and show intelligence in the field of "deciding ones own fate and choices". However, the language barrier which is still very large prevents animals from making such choices. There is nothing in philosophy or fact which states that an animals brain is designed to grasp the concept of political views or the understanding of laws which the human world understands well enough to abide by it. *Do not let the Pro argue that this obstacle is easily breached by "teaching" or "training" these new "persons" how to abide by such laws, as it is to far-fetched of an accusation to be made* -Happiness/Property: -Once again, I agreed with the Pro that all living things are entitled to happiness in their lives. However, I have yet to see justification in the Pro"s argument for animals to own property. This would imply both that they have now been given ways to obtain money any the ability to communicate how they desire to spend it. For the sake of time, I will go no further on this aspect of the debate. Voters, I understand that I have not contested the point of this debate with philosophy as the Pro has. However, I have pointed out that if the Pro intends to stand by his clarifications as the basis and justifications to bestowing "personhood" upon the animal kingdom, then he must also understand how it effects the rest of the world and the impracticalities of doing so. Can: Be allowed to:"to be allowed to do something, either by legal or moral right or by permission. -The Pro argues that animals "can" be deserving of personhood. in the debate terminology, the word "can" implies that something is achievable but doesn't necessarily have to be achieved. The reason something wouldn't"t have to be achieved could be for multiple reasons, namely being impracticalities of achieving said goal. In conclusion, as the Con, I set out to prove that animals are not deserving of the unalienable rights first acknowledged and respected by humans due to the impracticalities of doing so. The Pro should rather argue more so taking pro-action on specific animal rights as his arguments would have gone much further. The con should win for successfully contesting the Pro, for proving that philosophical arguments on this topic do not account for the impracticalities of implementing said "personhood" and for successfully contesting a philosophical argument with the facts which it forms its basis upon.