Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

On my opponent's case1. This is an ad populum fallacy. Because people support it does not mean it is desirable. We are debating the validity of animal rights, not democracy.3. People who participate in animal cruelty may very well be exhibiting psychological issues. However, this is not meant to protect the animal, but to protect other people. As a matter of public health, people who participate in this may be required to submit to psychological tests, but animals' welfare is not relevant, and does not need to be protected. On another note, my opponent's pathos is delightful.2, 4, 5, 6. I group these arguments together because they are essentially the same argument. Laws protecting animals are helpful to humanity. I dont deny there are many ways(a great deal more than 4) that hurting animals hurts us, and not protecting them hurts us. But consider the arguments my opponent is making. Their 'rights' are dependent on whether they help us or not. It would make sense that a veterinarian may treat a cow in order to prevent it from giving diseased milk. By that same token, if the cow stops producing milk, the cow will probably be slaughtered. So, in truth, the cow has no 'right' to life, we just need it to live long enough to suit our purposes.If a government or company realizes that a certain species is being overhunted, then they can make laws regulating how many can be killed per year. If we can use a resource, and maintain it in a profitable way, then by all means, do it! But if an animal is not particularly helpful and is going to go extinct, so be it. More than 99.9% of all animals that have ever lived are extinct, the world goes on(I can provide sources if necessary). If torturing an animal helps scientists achieve some benefit to humanity and do it effectively, then do it. In any case, no animal is entitled to these 'rights', they, as an individual or a species, only need to live long enough to suit our purposes. 'Protective Rights', like inalienable rights or natural rights, imply a moral obligation to protect them, and there is no such obligation.Defense of my case1. Social Contract Theory doesnt apply to animalsThere is no real attempt by the United States government to write laws that must be obeyed by animals, such as mandating humane hunting of deer by cougars. At any rate, the cougars would only ignore any such laws. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.Ironically, this is exactly my point. Animals: Deer, Cougars, etc. can not comply nor do they have the potential to comply with the duties and obligations of participants in a social contract. If they do not meet the duties and obligations towards the group, they are not entitled to it's mutual benefits and protections.2. Anthropocentrism is and should be the basis of all action.Cross-apply arguments on 2,4,5, and 6 of my opponent's case.3. The slippery slope of animal welfareThe propositions my opponent states aren't quite in keeping with what I'm saying, so I'll just state propositions in a similar manner.A. Animal Welfare laws are applied on a moral basis and applied inconsistentlyB. If protections are based on a moral basis, then, in order to be moral, they should be applied consistently Which presents us with two options. 1. Apply laws to all animals 2. Apply laws to no animals.C. Applying protective rights to all animals is destructive and harmful to humans.Conclusion: Therefore, we should not give protective rights to animals.My opponent here intends to show benefit in inconsistently applied law. I agree that inconsistent laws can be helpful, but only so when they are applied(when the kids don't smoke). So only when the laws are consistent do we see a consistent benefit(nobody smokes). If animal rights are sufficiently warranted, we should apply them, and apply them consistently.For example, if we say people should get a fair trial, great! But what if we said only white people get a fair trial? What if only people with high annual income get a fair trial? Or men?It may seem like I am being unfair with the analogy, but at least it is a consistent analogy. We protect animals we have a closer emotional connection to. To clarify with my opponent, this is what I mean by 'cute'. But if puppies are protected and cows aren't, then morally, we commit the same error we just made with humans. If we dont protect all animals, then we have committed a very real case of speciesism on a genocidal scale-over 9 billion animals killed in '08.But what is 'all animals'? Even if we are just talking about the Kingdom Animalia, the cost is very great. Source 4 in my case shows that there are about 2 million Feral Hogs in Texas alone. They are responsible for agricultural damage all across Texas, compounding the issues faced by a statewide drought, and their population is increasing exponentially.This was one relatively minor example, but the cost is very real. If we are going to commit to animal protective rights then we must be prepared to give up all meat and only use humanitarian(animalitarian?) means to deal with over 2 million wild Feral Hogs, not to mention billions of rats in the world. Many of these populations, even now, can overrun us without proper application of force. This is not, as my opponent suggsts, laughable. This is reality.