Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

I thank Con for his reply!Con’s Arguments: I will attempt to summarize the arguments that Con has made in the previous round – if I have unwittingly straw-manned or omitted any of his arguments, I urge him to inform me.Argument 1: Statistically, secular people behave more morally upright than non-secular folk.Argument 2: Humans, unlike animals, are cognitive beings, and should therefore choose not to harm animals.Argument 3: This is the argument that confused me, for two reasons: firstly, the argument that animal rights are meaningless is what I, Pro, am trying to argue, so I don’t understand why Con would bring it up (without a counterargument for it). Secondly, as stated in the rules in round 1 which Pro set and Con accepted, neither of us will be making reference to religious reason to avoid or promote animal rights. Therefore, I will be ignoring this argument unless Con can provide further explanation.Argument 4: Pro (i.e. myself) is arguing that secular people have no moral guidance. Morality is subjective. Religion is not the only moral standard, and other things can bind a person to their moral values, such as the consequences of their actions.Refutations:Argument 1: Con makes a case for secular people, and how they may care for legal laws to a greater extent than those who are religious, and argues that a secular viewpoint is in fact more moral than a religious one. This may indeed be true in many cases; however, whether or not secular people believe the legal system is meaningless does not affect the argument of this debate. It is fully possible for an individual to be entirely law-abiding and still morally corrupt, choosing to obey the laws of society simply to avoid punishment and being thrown in prison. Therefore, this argument does not promote Con’s case in any way.Argument 2: Con mentions that humans are aware of the consequences of their actions, and thus should choose not to harm animals. He does not specify what sort of consequences he means, but I can think of two main ones: through harming the animal, he may consequently harm himself, or (obviously) harm the animal or other animals.Now, if Human X chooses not to hurt animals in order to avoid hurting himself (e.g.: causing a species to go extinct may inadvertently harm him), then it may very well be a valid reason – however, it will not be a moral reason, which is what Con needs to argue for. Consider the example of a person choosing not to kill his neighbor’s dog. He may choose to do so simply because he does not want to be attacked by his neighbor or the police.This is not morality, this is selfish interest; Human X is not acting based on standards for what is right or wrong, but to act on his own preference and preservation. This does not advance Con’s case for a moral reason to avoid persecuting animals. On the contrary, it supports my view: that rights are arbitrary because their existence is based on personal preference and interest.On the other hand, he may believe it is wrong to cause the really adorable dog pain and suffering. This would be a moral reason. This brings us to the next point: humans may also choose not to behave in a certain way to an animal because the consequences would harm the animal. However, if Con makes this argument, he is begging the question. Why should it be morally wrong to harm animals? Because, he answers, it is morally wrong to harm animals. This argument is circular, and doesn’t stand either.Argument 3:As stated and explained above, I did not understand this argument, and I will therefore be ignoring it.Argument 4:My opponent employs the straw man fallacy on my argument. I did not state that secular people should abuse animals, and I did not state that secular people have no moral guidance. His argument, therefore, falls flat immediately, but I shall elaborate on it nonetheless. If morality is subjective, as Con claims, then rights really are arbitrary - moral views that are based on an individual and the consequences that would follow. (Again, I refrain from referencing religion, according to the rules that were set in round 1.)Rebuttals to Con’s Rebuttals:Argument 1: My opponent misunderstands my first argument. I cited symbiotic relationships as a reason that animals may choose not to harm each other – this is not a moral reason, but rather a mutual ceasefire by both sides, since both sides wish to survive. However, if any species wishes to survive, it must, as Con himself admits, kill and eat animals. Whether or not humans kill more than they eat is irrelevant to this debate. The fact remains that an animal's 'right' to not be killed remains violable.Arguments 2-3: Again, my opponent misunderstands - I did not claim that all secular people believe in the Theory of Evolution. I assumed, however, that my opponent did, since Darwinnian evolution is by far the most popular alternative to religious creation accounts. If he does not, for whatever reason, it is still an undeniable and observed fact that survival of the fittest occurs in the wild - even creationists cannot argue this, and therefore my argument stands. I can revise it, if my opponent wishes, to this:-Throughout the natural world, survival of the fittest occurs, and morality is absent-Humans are a part of the natural world -Therefore, it is unnecessary to treat animals with rightsConclusion:My opponent's arguments have consisted of two main ideas: firstly, he references secular and religious peoples' morality, or lack thereof, which is irrelevant to how animals should be treated. His other argument is that morality is subjective and should be based on the consequences of action - if the consequence he speaks of is for the one commiting the action, then it is not morality, and any rights should theoretically be able to be violated if it benefits the perpetrator. If the consequence he speaks of regards the harmed animal, then his argument is circular, and he begs the question.For similar reasons, Con's counterarguments fail: they either do not contribute to the topic, or they rely on consequential reasons not to harm an animal, which still do not give valid reason for an animal's rights as explained above.I look forward to my opponent's response!