Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

On the BOP:I argue that the burden placed upon me by the pro is absolutely ridiculous. What my opponent means by this is that animals having the same rights as human to the full extent (i. e. voting rights, the right to bear arms, etc. ) But this burden is absolutely ridiculous to place upon me, as it's impossible to prove true. As Peter Singer explains:Obviously nonhuman animals cannot have equal rights to vote and nor should they be held criminally responsible for what they do. That is not the kind of equality I want to extend to nonhuman animals. The fundamental form of equality is equal consideration of interests, and it is this that we should extend beyond the boundaries of our own species. Essentially this means that if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain—if the pains hurt just as much. How bad pain and suffering are does not depend on the species of being that experiences it. This equal consideration of interests is exactly the "moral consideration" my opponent discredits. As such, it's my burden to prove that justice would require this equal consideration of interests. Prefer my burden because it's much more fair and is actually able to be fulfilled. On Nussbaum 2:My opponent completely misunderstands what this card is saying. He says that this card is saying that all capabilities deserve "equal" consideration, but that's not what the card is saying. What Nussbaum 2 is talking about is how capabilities can be found in different species, and that there is no unique capabilitiy to one species, thus making the capabilities equal and trade off with one another. Since he hasn't actually responded to what the card is actually saying, he's essentially conceded it. Clear extension. His only other argument was saying that the life of a human is far more in worth than that of a dog, but 1) there's no warrant other than his assertion that this is true and 2) all this is is a baseless, fallacious appeal to emotions without an actual warrant. On Contention One:I'm a little confused as to what my opponent means by this argument. It seems he doesn't really understand what my evidence is saying. Allow me to clarify. A life is not the same thing as a capability (i. e. a capability being able to walk, to breathe, to roam, to hunt, etc. ) He's taking my talk about capabilities and interchanging it with life and value, which entirely strawmans my argument. It is the capabilities that animals possess that justice must allow to flourish, as my argument clearly talks about, which is why justice requires the recognition of animal rights. Nothing about this argument disproves my framework. But it is true that the recognition of rights does not prohibit killing, as the Daws evidence provides us. As long as the killing is done humanely and gives consideration to the animal's capabilities, then it would be permissible. At which point you can extend Nussbaum 3, which points out that animals all have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish. This warrant was NEVER adressed in my opponent's last speech: it went entirely conceded. In so far as I'm proving that animals have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish and that justice requires us to consider the capabilities of all animals, I'm fulfilling my burden for the round and thus is enough for me to win. Also, extend the Daws evidence, which says that things like killing and ownership of animals isn't prohibited by justice as long as it is done with consideration to the animal's interests. There was nothing said against this in the last round, it went entirely conceded. It's going to be play an intergral part in the dismantling of my opponent's arguments, so keep it in mind as we progress. Next, I'm sad to say that my opponent has comitted a bit of plagiarism. His argument against the Singer evidence I provided in my case was, effectively, copy/pasted, with little to no credit given to the actual author of his argument (Posner). The quoted argument from Posner's words are below:Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog—more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. You would have to say, let the dog bite (for "if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain," provided the pain is as great). But any normal person (and not merely the infant's parents! ), including a philosopher when he is not self-consciously engaged in philosophizing, would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would minimize the sum of pain in the world. The italicized part is what my opponent credits Posner with saying, while the bolded is what was not credited. Notice the glaring similarities between the word choice and sentance structure of the two arguments. I ask my opponent use his own arguments to rebute mine and if he uses evidence from another person, to give credit where credit is due. But to respond to the actual argument, there's literally no warrant to it. All it is is a massive, fallacious appeal to emotions with no actual warrant for why it is true or why it matters or makes my argument invalid. And to respond to my opponents arguments against Nussbaum 1, the reason why computers are not granted rights is because they are not alive and living, and thus cannot be sentient and conscious in the sense that my case implies and the resolution implies. When they become alive and living, then of course they ought to be granted the same consideration. In so far as I've refuted all my opponent's arguments against my case, it can clearly be extended. There were many warrants my opponent conceded, but that will be adressed at the end. Now let's respond to my opponent's arguments. My opponent's arguments rest on the fact that the domestication and exploitation of animals is necessary for the advancement of the human race. The one and only problem with this is the Daws evidence I provided in my case that says that as long as the animal's capabilities are given consideration, the killing and exploitation of them would be a permissible action. So in the affirmative world, I would be able to still have the same animal products that would advance the human race. His argument is inherently non-unique. Since he conceded the Daws evidence, this is going to have added weight to it. In so far as this is true, there is no offense for him to garner off of his case that can't also be used as offense for me. His case is defused in a single blow. With that being said, the debate breaks down pretty easily from this point:1. My opponent misunderstands my case, and his arguments misconstrue what I'm saying.2. Most of my opponent's arguments are fallacious appeals to emotion without an actual warrant.3. My opponent has conceded far to many warrants in my case (i. e. the Daws evidence, the Rowlands evidence that says that if we do not consider the animals capabilities, we will be next to be wrongfully exploited, and the Nussbaum 3 evidence). All of which prove wonders for my case and disprove his case. 4. I'm refuting all of my opponent's arguments and giving clear extensions off my evidence.