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

With that said I'll move into the arguments. Rebuttal:Remember, my opponent has accepted Utilitarianism as a sound way to determine justice. Thus, you will be weighing the round through a cost-benefit analysis. Does recognizing animal rights help society or hurt it? Thats what this debate is about. Unrefuted argumentsA lot of key points I made weren't answered in my opponent's last speech. My opponent has not refuted the following: 1. My opponent's arguments are not Utilitarian in nature because they do not attempt to produce a net benefit. 2. My opponent has given two quotes indicating that no violation of rights is ever just. These are under my Animal Testing section of round three. If animals had rights, experimenting on animals would violate them. Thus, he cannot justify animal testing and thus condemns millions of people to die from disease and starvation. The only option is to not recognize animal rights.3. Animals cannot suffer when they experience pain because they do not have complex emotions. Therefore, recognizing an animal's right to freedom from unnecessary suffering doesn't make sense. 4. Animal abuse is neither right nor wrong; it is morally neutral. I'll elaborate more on how these are conceded as we go down the individual arguments. For now, concessions 1 and 3 individually defeat the entire Pro advocacy. Pro's case and UtilityIn LD debate, which this resembles, all arguments must tie back into the criterion, or the method in which we weigh the round. This is Utilitarianism, since he has accepted it. Therefore, any argument in this debate must relate to that theory in order to qualify as a valid argument. My opponent has misunderstood this all round. He constantly thinks that this is about it being impossible to support both animal rights and Utility, which it isn't. This is about his arguments not matching the framework for the round. The following syllogism should clarify:1. Utilitarianism is how the winner of the debate is decided (Accepted by opponent)2. Thus, any argument we make should attempt to produce a net benefit/maximize utility. 3. Pro's one argument is that animals deserve rights because they can suffer. This does not produce a net benefit. 4. Thus, Pro's case does not apply under the framework that he himself has accepted. My opponent's straw manning of this point means he has conceded the true argument, thus his argument about animal suffering wouldn't apply even if I dropped it. Can my opponent support animal testing? ?? Like last round, my opponent repeatedly tries to say that he can support experimentation because its for a greater good, and thus not a violation of the right to unnecessary suffering. He does not respond to the quotes of him I gave in my last round, namely the one of him saying "No law, institution, or person is just if it or he violates or ignores or in some way encroaches upon the rights of others". This quote directly contradicts his assertion because it states any violation of rights is unjust, whether there be a greater benefit or not. Thus, he can't support killing animals for food but also say he's for animal rights. He does not respond to my argument asking what the point of having rights is. We experiment on and kill animals all the time for practical purposes. Why would we give animals rights at all if we can take them away whenever we feel like it? What? At one point in his last round, Pro said this: "At no point did I say that animals have a right to life or freedom. "I'm not sure how to respond to this except to arbitrarily say that this makes no sense. He wants to defend the right to freedom from suffering but not the right to life? This is absurd. It would lead to the conclusion that killing animals for fun is OK as long as its painless. Furthermore, all other rights stem from the right to life, since nothing can exist without it. At the point where my opponent does not want to defend an animal's right to life, he forfeits the opportunity to defend any rights because life is a prerequisite to having them in the first place. SufferingWe agree that animals feel pain on a basic physical level. But he makes the argument that "to be in pain is to suffer". This is actually a drastic claim that I reject entirely. Pain is an unpleasant sensation. Suffering is an agonizing feeling coupled with emotional distress. They are nowhere near synonymous. Onto the actual argument. Pro continually says that he defends the animal's right to freedom from unnecessary suffering. However, he's completely dropped my argument that animals do not actually suffer because they lack complex emotions. I even said last round that " a lack of an emotional response to pain effectively prevents suffering" and he did not address this. He also never denied that animals do not have complex emotions because of their limited cognitive capacity. Thus, its established that animals do not have emotions and thus do not suffer. Its worth noting that freedom from suffering is the only animal right Pro has defended. As such, this concession nullifies his entire case. On a separate issue, Pro does not address my argument about Moral Neutrality. This indicates that just because something may not be good (like harming animals) doesn't mean its inherently bad. ConclusionPro has one argument; animals can suffer. My response was never directly addressed so this falls. On the other side, not recognizing animal rights is the only way to allow animal experimentation and food consumption, which he's conceded save millions of lives. Furthermore, morality is not black and white. Even if there are certain things we can do to animals that aren't good, it doesn't instantly mean they're bad. Finally, it makes no sense to defend any rights of animals without defending the right to life, since all other rights stem from being alive. Based on these arguments and others, it should be clear that not recognizing animal rights benefits society the most and thus is the action a just society would take. Again, thanks for the debate.