(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

This debate has caused me to think harder about my views. This section will contain only rebuttals to the original argument. ========== Firstly, I would like to remind voters to take ahold of your emotions, and not let my opponent’s pathos arguments sway you. Seeing videos of tortured animals may push you over to the irrational conclusion that we must grant all animals as much natural rights as possible, when this conclusion may actually decrease what you really want – less pain. “Argument #1: animals should be treated humanely, outside of euthanasia there is no way to humanely kill an animal. ” This argument is based on the bare assertion that animals should be treated humanely. I have demonstrated in my previous arguments that treating something “humanely” is not basis for our actions. It is pragmatic utilitarianism. Under this pragmatic utilitarianism, the only reason killing someone painlessly is not good is the effects it would have. The living, who care about their life, would be less secure, less happy, and less dedicated to making themselves happy if they know that they are more likely to die or suffer. Animals, on the other hand, do NOT know that they will die, and do NOT change how they think when not explicitly exposed to death of a fellow animal. The video that my opponent showed that claims cows back away from slaughtering machines because they “know they will die” is false. The cow is not likely backing away because he knows that he will die, but rather backing away because of negative feedback from loud sources. Therefore, I counter-contend that even if we take “humanely” as a factor in utilitarianism, killing animals in a painless and discrete fashion is not inhumane. Killing animals in a painless and discrete fashion is already practiced in most slaughtering houses, because it is the most efficient; killing quickly as opposed to slowly decreases time per kill, and killing discretely decreases tendency for other animals to act unruly. With this true, there is no need to specifically extend animal rights. “Argument #2: many sentient animals such as cows and chickens are social creatures. ” Being social creatures does not necessitate any form of meaningful sentience. As Game Theory shows, being social is simply away to better the chances of survival and general utility. While sentience makes Game Theory easier, it is still not the grounds on which to grant “rights”. My opponent further contends that certain animals have been known to “been known to mo[u]rn the loss of a loved one”. This also fits with Game Theory, because care for the survival of a community makes general survival easier; this does not mean animals should be granted “rights”. Even if it does, is quite irrelevant to the topic, since animals inevitably die, and they also mourn losses in the wild. A factory setting actually minimizes such mourning, because animals are NOT shown other animals dying. “Mourning” dogs is not a good example of real sentience, because pet dogs are much more likely to “mourn” their owners because their owners is a source of food. “Argument #3: sentient animals feel fear. ” This is also irrelevant to the topic, since factory settings minimize animal fear as opposed to wild settings. In factories, animals do not worry about predators, where as in the wild, they have to. While it is true that animals in factories are more prone to death (this is self-evident, since factory animals are meant to be killed), the animals themselves likely do not realize this. ========== It appears that my opponent was not anticipating my line of reasoning for not granting animal rights, and his original arguments fall flat because my arguments has undermined all of his original assumptions. He then offers new arguments (allowed by the rules) in the next round. The following will be arguments against those. ========== My opponent has caught on quickly to the utilitarian theme. However, in doing so, he has fallen into its trap. Now that he is arguing based on utilitarianism only, he must reformulate all his original arguments. I contend that utilitarianism favors me. “Humans however do have a choice, we can survive without harming (or at least decreasing the amount of suffering)…” That choice, however, decreases more human utility than it increases animal utility, as I have shown in my previous argument. My opponent contends the following, which I reject: “1. Less abuse and less exploitation of vulnerable human beings. (animal abuse increases chance of someone abusing/murdering a human. )” This is the slippery slope fallacy. Allowing humans to abuse animals without retaliation does not necessarily mean more abuse of humans. We should ban the thing that we do not want, instead of banning everything that leads up to it that have other, better uses. This argument also fallaciously implies that animal abuse causes human abuse. It is more reasonable to believe that sadism causes both. It is also more reasonable to believe that if someone abuses animals, he will be less likely to abuse further (There have been entire businesses built upon granting humans the ability to abuse objects so they won’t go home and abuse other humans). Instead of granting animals rights, we should attack the root of the problem and eliminate sadism. “2. Less world hunger and starvation. (cows eat 70-80% of corn produced)” Banning meat will not decrease would hunger. There is enough farm land and food for everyone in the world to eat. The troubling part is waste and the lack of efficient food transportation [1]. In addition, meats have significantly higher digestive value than plants [2]. “3. A healthier population (many studies show that a plant biased diet decreases a range of deceases including: cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and obesity)” While a plant based diet decreases certain diseases, it increases other harmful effects. For example, eating a plant based diet decrease muscle mass and brain functionality [3]. It is also undeniable fact that healthier first worlds eat more meat than third worlds. “4. Less destruction of the planet. ” Bare assertion. “5. Fewer dangerous drugs being tested on humans. Contending this is analogous to contending that it is better to not be alive, since being alive increases the chances of death. “By the definition we are using humans are on the exact same ‘degree of sentience’ as many animals. ” The fact that humans complain about frizzy hair is proof plenty that humans have a higher degree of sentience. “pt1. Human animals have rights. ” Proven false by my argument 1. “pt2. There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals. ” Proven false by my argument 2. “pt3. Therefore adult mammals must have rights too. ” Proven false by the above two. ========== [1]. . http://www.unep.org... [2]. . http://ajcn.nutrition.org... [3]. . http://www.scientificamerican.com... My opponent has failed to show how granting animals rights or eating a plant based diet would increase net utility for anyone. He has also dropped my contention that human treatment of animals, even in cattle farms, is already better than that of wild animals.