Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.

I extend my foremost gratitude to my opponent, and would respectfully request that he reserve any discussion of voting issues until the later rounds. However, given that he has brought the topic up, I will entertain a refutation so as not to leave any argumentative surface unscathed. I will evaluate my opponent’s case, restate my own as needed, and finish on the voting issues that my opponent felt it necessary to bring up since he brought them up.I fundamentally reject the proposition by my opponent that utilitarian justice and Socratic justice (the definition I proposed) are mutually exclusive; because utilitarian justice is one of many means of achieving Socratic justice. In essence, where giving each their due is what we aspire to achieve, maximizing utility is but one of many ways to define what it is that they are due. Some things to keep in mind:Firstly, my opponent argues that what is just or fair (where justice and fairness are synonymous, as Rawls would argue) is best achieved by the maximization of happiness (as Brentham would argue) in a utilitarian societal structure. Utilitarianism is acceptable, though it is not the only way to achieve what is “just” in all circumstances. My opponent argues that “not recognizing animal rights produces a utilitarian benefit.” He argues that recognizing animal rights precludes the consumption of meat or the use of animals for testing purposes in medical research. Why his logic is fallacious:In order to assert that the consumption of meat or use of animals in medical research is a violation of “animal rights” one must first assert that animals have the right not to be killed for food or be used as means of experimentation. As humans we accept that both medical research and eating are important activities to our survival, and to the betterment of mankind. Recall, that to accept that animals have rights only requires that one accept that there are certain things that humans should not do to animals, like make animals suffer needlessly. Actions that humans take towards animals that benefit human welfare are well purposed. Any suffering that animals may incur is then justified because it facilitates human benefit, and thus not a violation of “animal rights.” Recall further that to accept that animals have rights does not require an acceptance that the rights of animals and humans are (or even ought to be equal), only that they not be made to suffer needlessly. And as for my opponent’s response to my case:My opponent contends that my case is incompatible with utilitarianism on any level, which I take issue with. My opponent defined utilitarianism as “the greatest good for the greatest number of PEOPLE” to maximize human welfare.Again, a consideration human rights is in and of itself not at odds with any action humans take towards animals that results in benefiting humans because humans have higher moral consideration than animals. Where human rights and animal rights are in conflict, obviously deference should be afforded to humans because human have a superior moral claim. Given that humans and animals do not exist as equals, humans are justified in using animals to ends that benefit humanity -but not senseless ends that cause unnecessary animal suffering. My opponent notes that I have not listed (at least) 2 “rights” that animals are entitled to, and he asserts that because I have not listed animal rights to a point of specificity that I have failed to meet my burden of proof. I reject this claim wholeheartedly, on the grounds that the resolution states: “Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.” “Rights” in the plural form, does not require that he or I itemize what grievances animals are entitled to in every case, because rights are not and cannot be explicitly itemized to a degree of absolute certainty or universal applicability. To require that I do so abstractly (without a given situation to assess) is to task me with a responsibility greater than any philosopher, thinker, etc. ever undertook and is thus unreasonable. To accept and affirm the resolution only requires that the reader think of some abuse that humans ought not inflict upon animals in some situation -simply, to accept that there are some things that humans shouldn't’t do to animals. To negate this resolution requires a comprehensive and universal absence of restraint to what humans may to to animals. In essence, to disagree with this resolution is to state that there are, nor ought to be any limitations to what humans can do to the animal kingdom. However, my opponent takes issue with the fact that animals can feel pain because “the emotional component of pain” is a prerequisite for the experience of pain. This is absurd. If a dog yelps in response to being shot, obviously it is feeling physical pain. A close reading of my opponent’s cited evidence indicates that it only speaks to the HUMAN experience of pain, completely irrespective of that of animals. If animals didn’t feel pain, why would prescription pain medications be available for animals of varying species? Why would a kicked dog yelp? Obviously, because it would be experiencing pain if subjected to such abuse. If any being can experience pain, that being has a right to avoid doing so unless there is a good reason for it. Even though animals may not have the same emotional response to the experience of physical pain that humans do does not divest animals of all moral consideration, as my opponent seems to believe. Additionally, I have no obligation to define what a “just action” is (other than that it justice requires the recognition of human rights -which I have), only that a “just society” is obliged to recognize animal rights on some level. If on any level an individual recognizes that there are some things that people just ought not to (like torture a dog for fun, or kill a cat because they can) then that individual recognizes that animals have some rights. To that end, a just society would recognize those rights. Lastly, My opponent has made the following concessions:“To accept that animals have rights only requires that one accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals." Thats fine. In Pro's next paragraph, he says that animal rights only exist in human to animal interaction. Ok. Then he says that humans having the ability to abuse animals doesn't mean that its justified. Ok.” Because my opponent agrees that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals, he recognizes that animals have rights, and furthermore that simply because humans have the power to abuse animals does not make them justified in doing so. If humans are not justified in abusing animals, then not only do animals have the right not to be abused but society (composed of humans) is obliged to recognize that the abuse of animals is wrong. To that end, my opponent essentially accepts that “A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.”In summery: Achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people is not in conflict with the recognition of animal rights because any act that humans took to better humankind would not result in needless suffering of animals. Accordingly, there is no "auto-win" if you, as a judge accept utilitarianism because utilitarianism as defined by my opponent is not in conflict with a recognition of animal rights.