Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

Okay so long story short, my opponent just isn't doing enough work to understand the K and refute the K.To start with, ignore the massive text at the top about how animals are necessary for humans egoistically. I'm not running egoism. If anything this is just another link into the K because he's saying that we ought to keep these animals alive and not persecute them, which rests on ethical assumptions of ought.Start on Nietzche 1. Extend it out. God is dead at the hands of humanity. Our attempts to bring Him back to life via appealing to moral standards re-kills Him over and over again. Without God's life, there lacks an authoritative norm behind moral standards to give them reasons to believe them. Without God having the final moral say in what is actually good and what is actually bad, we wouldn't know if Pro's standard is the correct standard to live by. His only response to this is that it's irrelevant because he doesn't believe in God, but a) your belief is irrelevant to determining whether or not God is dead, and b) your belief isn't relevant to my framework especially since I'm not running some kind of Christian theology.Then go to Brown 1. Extend it out. The attempt to bring up other theories to base our moral impulses off of in the wake of the death of God creates a moralism that's without morality. Our desire for "good" is still there, yet the telos for the good has disapeered and it creates the exact opposite of morality.His response to this is to literally concede that he thinks that we can find some source of good without God. This is word for word him conceding the link into the K. This means that affirming leads to the impacts. Don't let him get out of this link since when he said "Correct." in response to Brown 1's tag line he's verbatum conceding to the link.And, all the massive wall of text below it concern biblical teachings isn't relevant to the K. My argument is that God is dead, so without His existence that no moral code has any kind of objective warrant behind why that is the correct way to live one's life. What the Bible says and what religion has done in the world is literally irrelevant to this point.Then go to Nietzsche 2. Extend it out. Without God providing us our reasoning for doing things and giving us a source for the demands imposed on us, all of our impulses and desires are without a source and without a reason and become disvalued and disenfranchised. Nietzsche compares it to the evolution of water animals when they were forced to either adapt to land or die off. Our old impulses and desires still impose their demands on us, but we have to find new ways of fulfilling them. We pick something, anything, to work against, to demonize as the enemy and as something to be abolished and destroyed without any hesitation. And once it's defeated and eliminated, we have to find something else to strive against as quickly as possible. Without something to fight against, we tear ourselves apart in the downtime. Moralism is a constant physical and ethical struggle against ourselves and the outside world which encompases literally every individual on the face of the earth, which is going to out-weigh all other impacts. His only response is that he doesn't understand the argument, but a) I just did, and b) Nietzsche literally walks you through the warrants in the card step by step. If you read the card, it's not that hard to figure out what it's saying. Then go to Brown 2. Extend it out. Rather than address the root cause of our problems, to find ways to address the problems that we're facing and admit to our weakness and impotence, we prefer to ignore the problem and instead shift the attention away from our weakness and onto something else to fight. We'd much rather think that, despite our human flaws, we're still fighting the moral fight, still "fighting the good fight" than admit that we have no reason for believing what we believe. Within moralism, there isn't actually a way to solve for it. A society of moralism won't ever address the problem of moralism, instead preferring to just moralize harder and shift the attention away from the problem. And, Brown 2 is especially damning because Pro doesn't make any kind of response to it and drops it entirely. This a) only solidifies the warrant in Brown. Instead of trying to respond to moralism and trying to answer back for how we can fix the problem, Pro doesn't address it at all, instead preferring to talk about certain animals that make our existence possible. Instead of addressing the problem, he continues to act as if he's "fighting the good fight", which makes it impossible for him to solve for the impacts of moralism, and b) means you shouldn't let him make a response to this in the last round because not only did he have the chance to respond to it here and didn't, but letting him make new responses in the last round is unfair to me. Then go to Brown 3. Extend it out, because this is the most crucial piece and why you're ultimately negating at the end of the day. The way out of moralism is by negating. Instead of tying your vote to whichever belief system the affirmative decides to espouse at the end of the day, use it to criticize and poke holes in the assumptions of his ethics. This is the only way we can craft a new orientiation towards life that doesn't collapse into moralism. We need to critique moralism, not re-use it, and the only way to critique moralism is by negating. This is the game-over mistake for Pro because he 100% drops this argument. There's no response made by him to address this at all in his last speech. And this is critical to the K since the alternative is the most important part of the K and he didn't put a single response onto it. Don't let him make a response to it in his last round since I won't have a chance to respond to it, plus he had the opportunity to address it and didn't. And, even if he wants to use the Ten Commandments as an ethical system to try to get out of this, with God being dead even those lack warrant to why we ought to follow them since God's not there to uphold them anymore. Since my opponent seems hella confused as to what it is I'm arguing, I'm going to give the tl;dr of my case right here. If he still doesn't understand what I'm arguing, that's on him.Pro is advocating for some kind of moral good in his case. His arguments are that giving animals rights is a moral good and is morally right, which makes the assumption that his moral right is the correct moral right to live by and other moral rights are incorrect. My argument is that the only being with the ability to make something objectively right, since humans are inherently not perfect and flawed and capable of making mistakes, is God. The problem with this is that God is dead and we are the ones who killed him. Without His existence, there's no objective grounds to believe that any ethical system is the correct one. Pro attempts to say that God's death isn't relevant because we can still live good lives and do good things. Brown 1 says that this is exactly the problem - by attempting to try and "live good lives" and "fight the good fight" without some ultimate source of good, our appeals to good are groundless and without warrant, and it creates a form of pseudo-morality, which Nietzsche calls moralism, that becomes the exact opposite of morality. This results in an inner war of the self against their former impulses and the demands that moralism places upon them to act in some way, any way, so long as it's fighting against something. Eventually we just fight ourselves. And, within moralistic systems, trying to fix the problem isn't possible. People still believe that they're doing the right thing, still fighting the good fight, and so become blind to the consequences of moralism. The only way to escape moralism is by negating the resolution and questioning the assumptions of Pro's case. This means you can extend the two turns out that the K makes on the Pro's case. He questions the warrant for the first but that's literally straight out of Nietzsche 2. CONCLUSION:This makes the round relatively simple. The K stands and turns his case in two different places. I'm winning the K debate, which means that you can negate off of the alt of rejecting the affirmative case.