This house believe that animals have rights

The issue over animal rights has been long contested through the history of mankind, ever since we have first domesticated animals. However, it is clear that animals should indeed not be subject to the same or even separate rights that humans possess. This is why I negate the resolution: This House believes that animals have rights. Before we move on, please allow the negative side provide some definitions to ease the debate: Animals: A being that performs functions in order to stay alive Rights: Laws that protect the moral interest of the said animals Using these definitions, the negative proposes the following arguments: 1) Humans do not have any obligations towards animals A) Animals have no rationality nor interests It is clear that animals have no form of rationality from their day to day business. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, rationality means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic". Animals have shown no capabilities for doing so, due to the fact that animals only follow their instinct, and cannot follow logic. The main reason why animals have such a different capability for solving problems is due to the structure of their brain. Humans have undergone an evolution of the brain; for example, our neocortex, which deals with with sight and hearing, started to develop during Australopithecine times, and our most modern evolutionary element, Broca's Area, which deals with language, has continually developed up to this day. Animals do not have such developed forebrains, and due to this fact, they cannot think rationally. Having less developed 'left parts" of the brain (which controls rational thinking and linear/verbal aspects), they cannot be considered to have any form of morality. How can beings who cannot think morally nor rationally ever get rights? Philosopher R. G. Frey argued that animals do not have interests because they do not have language. Especially due to the fact they do not have a developed Broca's Area, they cannot have any interests, other than the survival instinct. Due to this fact, we cannot give rights to protect beings who don't have an area to protect in the first place. B) Animals are not agents of morality It makes no clear sense to give animals rights because they cannot make decisions concerning morality in the first place. Due to this lack of morality, they cannot treat us in an ethical manner in return. If they can, at least, develop to become more rational, then we can consider giving them some rights, but due to the lack of this ability, it is impossible to consider this in the first place. A right is like an agreement between the government and the beings concerned. If a person agrees to follow the government's laws and interests, then they get that right. Animals are not capable of doing so, and since they break that social contract, it is impossible to consider them getting rights in the first place. Of course, we could act "like angels", and give up our money and resources in order to give them rights. However, this is a waste of the aforementioned resources, as we get no benefits in return. We have to expect something to be given in return, but as there is no hope for this, the case for animal rights falls apart. 2) Humans have the right to dominate other creatures A) Humans are at the top of the animal hierarchy Humans, have technically, become the alpha predator of the food chain. We can exercise a number of animals under our control, and we even develop farms to provide a food source using other animals. Due to this, it is our natural obligation to exercise the power we have earned, due to the fact that nature has put us on top of the food chain. At first, this seems morally wrong. However, we have to kill animals for numerous reasons that protect our own species. We need meat to have a balanced diet, we need to test medicines to ensure that pathogens cannot harm us, and there are numerous more reasons for which we need them to further our own race. Thus, having no animal rights is actually morally correct, due to the fact that we are protecting our future generations. When deciding between a sick child and a morally-confused animal, most people would help the sick child. Thus, we have to make sure that our own species is safe from any harm before considering other animals beneath us. B) Animals should not be a major concern We have numerous other threats heading our way, and we cannot let a matter of animal rights get in our way. Countries are at edge with each other, and we have to diffuse these threats before they erupt into a bigger conflict. Animal rights cannot come in the way as they are not currently a big an issue. Our world is not ready to take on trivial issues, and we have to ensure the safety of our species before considering the rights of others. These arguments are arguing in favor for the human race. Animals, who have no moral compass, should not be guaranteed rights, such as humans are. Thus, using these two arguments (Humans have no obligations towards animals and Humans have the right to dominate other creatures) that the negative side takes the debate home. Sources: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... . http://blog.timesunion.com... . http://www.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.brainhealthandpuzzles.com...