Resolved: It is immoral not to extend rights to living animals.

I affirm. Definitions:Prefer my definition of immoral because it isn't circular. My opponent defines immoral as "something which is not moral". How do we define morality? Instead, I define "immoral" to be conforming to standards of bad behavior. Thus, wasting money, assaulting someone, and procrastinating on a homework assignment are all immoral.My opponent is very sensitive to my definition of rights. If an animal can breathe air, perform functions to sustain life, and not feel pain, then it has had rights given to it. I believe that this is the mutually agreed-upon definition and that we should stick to it for the debate.I would argue that living animals should be conscious; that is how debates about animal rights are centered. An unconscious animal does not feel pain, which is one of the requirements of "living animal" as established by both of us. Thus, prefer my definition of "living animals".My opponent calls my standard utilitarian, when it is actually net benefits for humans and animals. My opponent essentially says that since our assessment regards animals, benefits or harms to them need not be included in this debate. I would argue that involving a subject in a resolution actually makes them the MOST important for weighing benefits and harms. If we debate whether or not the U.S. should trade with Cuba, we should consider the implications to Cuba of doing so. If we debate abortion, we should consider the implications to the unborn fetus and not just the mother. Extend my standard throughout the round: whichever side creates more benefits for animals/humans should win.My opponent takes issue with my plan text. I argue that upholding the ESA is ONE of the ways through which we can AFFIRM and ACHIEVE the resolution's burden. Why? Upholding the ESA necessarily means giving rights to living animals. If upholding the ESA does more good than harm, then giving rights to animals does more good than harm. My opponent says that I must prove that the ESA is beneficial because it extends rights to animals; that is exactly what it does! I have attached a definition of the ESA to the bottom of this speech, but here is my logic for my plan.I have to argue to uphold X.Y is one way in which X is upheld.Thus, I can argue to uphold Y and still fulfill the burden provided by the resolution.The ESA is driven by protecting the rights of animals, not by anything else. My opponent needed to have provided evidence otherwise if he wished to attack my plan further.Extend my burdens throughout the round. They are more practical for today's debate and give the Pro and Con fairer grounding than did those of my opponent in his Round 2 speech. I will try to put them in different words.Pro: prove that EITHER failure to extend rights to living animals is IMMORAL: a bad behavior (i.e. does more harm than good), OR that failure to pursue the mechanism through which rights are extended to living animals is a bad behavior (this is what I do via the ESA)Con: prove that the BENEFITS of not extending rights to living animals outweigh the COSTS (more benefits --> good behavior --> not immoral). This is the only way Con can negate the resolution because he never provides a counterplan or alternative mechanism for accessing the ballot.My Contention 1: My opponent's only response to this argument is that I have no evidence. I did cite where I got my information in my Round 2 speech, but below is the link from which I obtain my information. Don't let my opponent criticize my evidence in the last speech, because I have no time to respond to it (i.e. after Round 5). Essentially, if I provide evidence, then the idea that extending rights to living animals is economically beneficial extends throughout the debate. This is relevant to the standard of net benefits.My Contention 2: My opponent responds to this argument by saying that since the argument is only a benefit to humans, this essentially invalidates my standard of net benefits for humans and animals. Any argument that matches at least ONE part of the framework AND extends throughout the debate is a VALID voting issue. In other words, since this argument is a benefit for humans and NOT a cost to animals, it fits perfectly within my framework. We should look to net benefits for animals too, because as I describe in my standard's justification, they are the subject of the resolution and must be considered with policy implemementation. Other than that, my opponent can NOT refute the idea that extending rights to living animals improves human health.My Contention 3: My opponent has scarce offense in response to my third contention. He goes on and on about how rights are dependent on a social contract theory, pointing to Locke's theory of government. But first, remember that he fails to JUSTIFY Locke's theory (i.e. over Hobbes' or just in general) in the scheme of today's debate: why is it more topical? Don't let my opponent generate a response in the Round 5 speech, because I have no time to respond. I argue that humans and animals ARE part of an implied social contract. Since animals do not strip humans of their rights, humans should reciprocate. This is the only way to achieve fairness and prevent IMMORALITY, which is what the resolution calls for. Let contention 3 extend through the debate.My Contention 4: My opponent altogether misunderstands my 4th contention, calling it logically fallacious argument. The argument mandates that all human beings have a common descent to other animals. This is validated by Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, a source that is never directly refuted by my opponent. My opponent says that dogs must be TRAINED to respect human beings; this does not take away from the fact that they do so. Philosopher Mearsheimer writes: "If humans were not incentivized and punished for their behaviors in society, then it is questionable how loyally they would conform to philosophical standards in society." But once again, my opponent does not directly refute the main point of my argument: since animals respect humans, humans should respect animals. Since Americans respect Cubans, Cubans should respect Americans. Once again, reciprocity is key to morality.Note that my opponent NEVER refutes the subpoint to my 4th contention about how not extending rights to living animals is a sign of a barbaric society; let it flow through today's debate.My opponent continues to accuse me of bringing a standard of utilitarianism to today's debate. I only want to look to net benefits for a few reasons:1. it gives Pro and Con fair access to the ballot2. my opponent fails to respond to it3. it is a clear way to measure immorality: what is a bad behavior, and what is not? Reiteration of Refutations:Opponent's Contention 1: Turn this argument on itself; I provide a definition of morality IN my opponent's source that says that rights are present among non-human animals.Opponent's Contention 2: My opponent gives no reason to prefer Locke's theory of government. He also fails to refute the idea that humans and animals do not have an implied social contract between them.Do not extend Con's contentions throughout the round.Voting Issues: (These are the ways in which Pro wins today's ballot.)1. economic benefit - Pro wins, as demonstrated by my 1st contention. Con provides no economic benefits resulting from not extending rights to living animals.2. human health - Pro wins, because Con's only response is that this contention invalidates the standard (which I show that it does not). More health --> more benefit --> less immorality.3. fairness - We must reciprocate. If animals respect us, we must do the same. Additionally, animals can think and feel pain just as humans, making their basic entitlements difficult to distinguish from ours. This is another reason to vote Pro.http://animals.about.com...http://www.defenders.org...I affirm and extend my voting issues to the judges.