Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

Hello to my opponent and thank you for letting us debate. The resolution is: Animal Rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint. before I start with the debate it is essential to define the following term: Secular: a belief that consists of nothing religious or spiritual Con must prove that animal rights are not meaningless from a secular viewpoint in order to win this debate. Pro wins by proving that all secular views of animal rights are meaningless. Opening argument: 1) A secular viewpoint advocates for a higher moral standard than a religion, and therefore, offers a more compassionate moral argument for animal rights: Atheists make up .1% of the prison population. That is 1 in 1000 persons. This is compared to the 12% of persons that consider themselves secular in America. This shows that persons of secular beliefs value the legal system more compared to persons of religious beliefs. This would conclude us to believe that secular persons, more often than not, think that the legal system is not meaningless. 2) Defining animal rights: My opponent brought up the argument that a wolf could care less about the rights of a deer he/she is eating. But I would also like to take into consideration that a wolf needs to live. And in order for that wolf to live he/she needs to eat. This is not animal cruelty, rather the natural cycle of life. Furthermore, the wolf is not cognitively aware that the deer has rights. Humans are cognitive being's and know the difference between right and wrong through a morally accepted social contract; our legal system. You could argue that humans would still act regardless, and yes they might, but most will not due to consequentialism or the results resulting from their actions. 3) One could make the argument that animal rights are meaningless in a religious viewpoint: Although I avoid and refrain from using biblical evidence, I think it may be used in this case. In genesis 1:28 is states that we [humans] should subdue the earth. The bible was originally written in hebrew and in hebrew the translation for subdue is "to trample on". God was referring to the animals and the creations that he had "created". Trampling on animals does not promote animal rights. 4) Is ought fallacy: My opponent is arguing that because secular persons have no moral guidance, then they would obviously be abusive to animals. But this falls into an is-ought fallacy. My opponent is stating that because secular persons have no moral guidance, then they ought to be abusive to animals. But how would you consider being abusive to animals moral or immoral in the first place. Morality is all subjective and only decided by you and yourself alone. The misconception that guides religious persons is that they would be barbaric and draconic without a holy book or spiritual being. The holy book and spiritual being they believe in isn't the only thing keeping them from killing everything in sight. They are also bound by what others think and the consequences of their actions going back to my point earlier of consequentialism. Rebuttal to opening argument: (opponents claim’s are underlined) 1) Animals cannot coexist and will not treat other species well: My opponent is clearly contradicting himself. He states that animals will create mutual benefits but then he jumps to that they won't? This argument is very confusing. There is a reason we are not in total anarchy right now. Obviously animals do not believe in a higher being to our current knowledge. The only reason they would harm another animal is by gaining something for them. As violent as it might be, it is essential to their survival. If anything humans "kill more than they eat". Animals only do what is necessary to survive. 2) Darwins theory of natural selection: This is a straw man argument because I never made the claim on the theory of natural selection or evolution. Secular simply means not believing in a religious concept. Being secular doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the teaching of Charles Darwin. I would dismiss his argument on natural selection as null and void because it has nothing to do and has no correlation with my argument. 3) "We, humans, are a product of natural selection, as are all other animals. Therefore, is is unnecessary to treat animals with rights.": My opponent is making another is-ought fallacy by assuming if humans were produced by natural selection, the they ought to treat animals without rights. What the real question becomes is what is actually considered subjectively right. Furthermore as I stated, Darwins theory of natural selection is not needed for my case so this point is null.Thank you and I urge a negative vote. sources: http://www.patheos.com...;