Protecting Animal Rights

First I must apologize for my lack of response in the 2nd round. I have been having troubles with my router and have been unable to obtain access to the internet over the course of the weekend. Also I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and look forward to the response. Before I start my rebuttal I find it prudent to define a few words. Sentient-http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. Conscious-http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past. 3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation. 4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt. 5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar. 6. aware of oneself; self-conscious. 7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort. 8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society. 9. Obsolete. inwardly sensible of wrongdoing. "A "sentient being" is any animal that's behaviour is directly related to it's avoidance of pain and/or suffering and it's desire to maintain well-being and happiness." By saying this your are in fact wrong, a sentient being is by definition "conscious" and as consciousness is defined as someone who is aware of there own existence, sensations thoughts, and surroundings, as well as being inwardly sensible of wrongdoing, animals are not sentient. You stated that being sentient is to be maintain well-being and happiness, as well as avoiding pain. When it is actually just as I said, having a conscious mind of morality, otherwise known as being inwardly sensible of wrongdoing. Animals are not able to accurately make decisions based on morals. When an unprovoked dog bites someone it shows its inability to make decisions based on morality. You also state that " Plants, rocks, trees, etc. are not considered sentient beings because there is no displayed behavior of pain and/or suffering." However by your definition that sentient means to have behavior that is directly related to it's avoidance of pain then plants are indeed sentient. In a particular episode of mythbusters a plant is subjected to electrical shock, and it then proceeds to show a response the signals pain. By what your saying we should then protect plants from things such mowing your lawn. But the reality is that we do not protect plants from things such as this simply because they are not sentient, because they are not able to make moral decisions for there own. A rose does not decide to not prick someone's finger with a thorn simply because it could be the wrong thing to do, no it can not control whether it does this or not. "You pose two questions that I will proceed to answer. First question, "Why should we protect animals when they are not sentient beings?" My response, is that animals are sentient beings because they can feel pain and/or suffering. Even if they weren't sentient beings like the plants, rocks, and trees, we still have a moral responsibility to preserve and protect these things because it is crucial to the survival of our own species." How exactly are animals crucial to are survival, for the sake of the argument lets consider your talking about animals such as pets. Yes, pets are companions. But they do not help our species exist. They do not provide us food, or oxygen, or shelter, or water. So in fact they in no way help us survive. Humans have an obligation to protect other humans. This is why we raise babies and protect them, this is also why we help the mentally disabled. Also babies have rights and babies are protected not only because they are human, but because at some point they will be sentient. One who is sentient is always sentient. Thus those that are babies and those that are mentally disabled are indeed sentient. They are also sentient because they are indeed aware that they are alive. Furthermore if you wish to implement more animal rights then you cant simply implement them for just animals you view as good such as cats and dogs. You must issue those animals rights to every single animal. For example do you really think that misquotes, wasps, and spiders deserve to have the same rights that a cat or dog does. No I am pretty sure you don't. Also if you delve so far to say that killing animals is wrong and that anyone that kills an animal should go to jail, then pretty much everyone in the world would go to jail. Every time you killed a spider, or every time you shot a deer during season. Animal population would get out of control, it is simply unreasonable to give rights like this to animals. Finally how would you regulate these animal rights. There is no possible way to completely keep track of whether someone kills a spider. Also how would you know if an event truly did unfold. An animal cant simply walk into court and give a testimony, it is unruly, and unreasonable to believe that animal rights such as thus would go down efficiently.