Veganism and Animal Rights

Thank you for keeping up that debate with me.I'm going to use my summary round to analyze the most important things in the debate at this point:1) Conceded points.2) Logical fallacies.3) Morality.Conceded Points:My opponent conceded several signficant points throughout the debate. Keep in mind that a conceded point may be conceded explicitly or implicitly. If my opponent made no point to disprove or argue against one of my points, it's considered implicitly conceded.1) The animals in question are non-person, non-emotional living beings.2) Sentience is not important. My opponent conceded the definition of sentience, and he never explained why having sensory receptors endows certain animals with human rights so this is to be on my side.3) Cows have the same moral ability as a venus fly trap. My opponent and I agree that level of intelligence does not dictate morality. I asserted that a venus fly trap is a sentient, non-person living being, which can also be said of cows. Because my opponent never stated a metric for moral ability, we cannot make a differentiate between the two since intelligence and complexity have nothing to do with morality, and nothing else about either one of those two are contesters for giving them moral right as well. Since we can't give human rights to plants, we have to treat the equals as equals and restrict human rights to humans.4) Deer hunting is a natural way to protect deer populations in suburban areas. My opponent's only response to this is that it's only necessary because of humans. Naturally, that leads us to believe that humans should fix it. Humans hunting deer fixes the problems caused by deer overpopulation.5) Humans are omnivores. My opponent conceded our bodies have adapted to eat meat. The originl intent of humanity is a religious argument not a scientific argument, but the current status of our bodies is a scientific argument. My opponent has been attempting to stick to science, so we must assume the latter argument.6) My opponent must prove that veganism is the only morally correct way to live. We may assume this because my opponent never contested this after my bringing it up in round one and round three. This is significant, because a few of these conceded arguments are not compatible with that statement.7) My opponent has been making significant logical fallacies throughout the debate. My opponent never explained why his arguments made sense; he simply restated them. Any of these arguments labeled as logically fallacious cannot be accepted as true, because they lack logical backing. This dovetails quite nicely to the next segment.Logical Fallacies:I'm going to just kind of quote them and explain why they're logical fallacies. These are all from this round. Other logical fallacies have been pointed out.-- "Your implication that because you are a person you deserve rights is arrogant and biased. That's like saying because you are white or black you should have rights." --This is the logical fallacy known as the false analogy. The reason this is a false analogy is because the relation to the two groups is not the same. The relation between them is person to nonperson versus person to person. Unless my opponent means to assume that either white or black people are not, in fact, people, then this analogy holds no ground.-- "My opponent said that she loves animals. She lies. People who love kids, don't eat kids. People who love dogs don't eat dogs. People who love animals don't eat animals. Because she eats animals, she does not love them." --This one is often referred to as the hasty generalization. My opponent assumes that because I eat some animals that I don't love any of them. In fact, my opponent assumed that my using the example that I am capable of being attached to something is equal with the idea of loving something.It's also an ad hominem logical fallacy. He's ignored most of my case during his rounds, but he made a point in his argument to attack me as a person. Not very ethical debating for someone who's living the most compassionate life possible. Either way, it has nothing to do with who won the debate.-- "Lions also greet each other by sniffing each others anuses. Should we also do that?" --This is a red herring. Behaviors such as that have nothing to do with the debate, and bringing it up is just silly.-- "When my opponent says that there is nothing wrong with eating meat, she implies that there's nothing wrong with enslaving, torturing and slaughtering innocent animals. You can't get meat without those three things. They all go hand in hand." --My opponent makes several mistakes here. First of all, it's an appeal to emotion. The words my opponent chooses are typically used when talking about people, and they have a lot of meaning when talking about people. However, my opponent has not connected how nonpersons deserve the same level of sympathy. The second problem is the word innocent. My opponent is ignoring hunting as a method of getting food. hunting neither involves enslaving, torturing, nor slaughtering. You kill the animal quickly after shooting it. There's nothing in there about enslaving it or torturing it, and the killing it is usually a knive or bullet to the back of the head, which kills immediately. No bleeding them out.The entire statement is false.-- "They have done nothing to deserve the pain and torture we inflict on them. YES, ANIMALS CARE ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH! That's why cattle prods are used to force them into the slaughterhouses." --My opponent here is using a logical fallacy called ignoring the facts (not a proper logical fallacy). My opponent never addressed how animals care. I addressed how they don't care. I presented facts. In order for my opponent to dispute those facts, he must also present facts. using caps lock does not make you more right.-- " I can't believe that my opponent really thinks that it is more more morally right to torture animals, than to not torture them." --This is a straw man (attacking something I never said). I never said that it's more morally correct to eat meat. I simply said that it's not immoral to eat meat. That's all I have to prove (refer to conceded point number 6).So almost all of what my opponent said in the last round is a logical fallacy.Morality:Here's a summary of the two sides:Pro: Animals deserve human rights. We're not sure why, because they're not people, they're not emotional. We're supposed to believe that they are, but evidence doesn't seem to point that way. They care about dying because they resist death (con will contend that's just good Darwinism), and that's the main reason really. People who eat meat don't care about any animals because you don't eat something from a group of things you care about. Vote pro to be not evil.Con: Animals do not deserve human rights. Their rights are ambiguous, because conversation on the source of rights never happened in this debate. All we know is that nonpersons and persons are not the same, so their rights cannot be assumed to be the same. Animals don't care if they die or experiene fear nearly the same way we do, so linking our emotions to theirs doesn't work. We can't assign rights on any other grounds because that would mean giving too many rights to certain plants or taking away rights from other creatures of the same right. We have no way to agree that animals have human rights or that anything we do to them is necessarily wrong. No conversation on moral right or moral ability happened from pro, so we cannot assume pro is right.Given that pro's arguments were primarily emotional and revolved around very little facts or logical reasoning, he has no grounds in this debate. I would like to respectfully ask for a con vote.Thank you for reading.Kudos to you if you made it all this way.