Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

I thank con for his response. Cons caseA few remarks on cons initial framework. I do agree that the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many so one persons death to save five would be morally desirable we agree. As far as egoism goes, I am not sure if con is positing it on the individual or society. Furthermore, is he saying that is how we should act or simply how we do? Raping someone might be in my own self interest but that certainly would not be moral. Morality applies more than just to the individual. I would also contend that moral facts undoubtedly can override our own self interest. For example, if I see a girl drowning I have an obligation to do something about it even if just to alert another person. This may not always be in my self interests and if I decline to commit to the act due to my preferences, I am not being moral. I also raised the point last round of "unjust appication" which my opponent dropped. The contention was that animals should be recognized as a part of society and the moral framework so if my opponent shows giving animals rights would be undesireable for humans, that accomplishes nothing as my extended argument refutes that."C.1 Slaughter"Con extremely briefly concludes his point by stating we would have no meat if we gave animals rights. Besides his unsupported assertion that this would be devastating, con never really argues an impact. Yes we wouldn't be able to eat animals anymore. We have to sacrifice luxuries for the greater moral good. For centuries land owners found it impossible to give up the benefits of owning slaves, but eventually morality one the fight and anyone would agree that it was certainly best."C.2 The Meat Industry"Con makes his mistake by assuming the process would be almost instantaneous. It might be true that an instant stopping of the meat industry may be as bad as con hints, but we have to consider, giving animals rights and finalizing the transformation to a non-meat eating society would be an incredibly long process. It would take perhaps years. It would not Con also mentions the following organizations, "Grocery stores, deli's, restaurants, venders, shipping companies, and processing facilities". While it is true all these are essentially part of the meat industry, that is not the primary purpose for most. Grocery stores obviously sell many other things than meat. There are plenty of foods restaurants can sell and meat is only one small part of shipping companies. We can also very importantly deduce other jobs and industries would take over the meat industries place. Nuts, vegetables, fruit and grain industries would all grow as that became the main food products being bought. It's simple logic. If we stop eating one type of food, we'll start eating more of the other. Therefore the other food industries will undoubtedly boom even if the meat drops. This creates more jobs in those industries. Furthermore, giving animals rights would quite likely entail more programs and organizations committed to animal care which would also create more jobs.The claims that giving animals rights would result in an economic collapse are clearly far-fetched.C.3 Nuclear warThis argument stems from the second one. If C2 is false, this is false so my rebuttal of C2 refutes this.I fail to see how a bankrupt Germany trying to gain power and causing world war II has much relevance to this. First off, con contradicts himself. He states the world would go into global decline. Germany wanted power when they were an economic dwarf. In this case, if we put it into context, we'd all be dwarfs thus all in the same ditch. Hardly applicable to world war II. Additionally, the Treaty of Versailles played a huge part on Germany's want of power and con hasn't raised any similar factors here. Con even states himself they wished to assert their dominance after suffering defeat in world war I. There's nothing even similar to the two scenarios. By allowing animals rights, what shame would any country suffer to the extent they would cause a world war III?http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...Cons arguments rely on wild speculations that never really meet sufficient warrant. My caseLet's highlight the points con disagrees with.Self-ownershipWe are a superior species to animals and have a certain degree of authority over them, thus do indeed act as if we own them. However, this simply falls either into abusive or authoritative ownership which both fail to refute the point. By authoritative ownership I mean such as that of a parent over a child. The parent has a certain degree of control over his children because they are the authority. In the same, humans have an authority over their pets to an extent. Funnily, con sources his rebuttal from the societal structure we have in regards to animals, but we can also see this structure gives self-ownership to animals itself. It may be fully legal to buy animals at a pet store but it is completely illegal to beat and abuse that dog. In this way we see self-ownership at play. Humans have authority over their pets, like parents to children, but only to a certain degree. Humans don't have the ownership over the pets to do whatever they want with them. Like I stated in the last round, the consciousness of the animal inhabits the body, it feels and has a will. There is no reason to say it does not have self-ownership.Consciousness I disagree with my opponent that plants possess consciousness. I don't see anything contributing to that statement but he does raise a good point about insects. However I think the point can be refuting from my argument from intrinsic worth. As far as that points sways, I never stated things have intrinsic worth as con seems to imply. Animals have intrinsic worthy because of their power to act and contribute to society. It is important to note though, the worth of the animal to itself. Animals are more significant than insects because they have more meaningful lives and much more advanced in rational capabilities. ObligationCon does raise a good point that makes me wish I had argued more thoroughly last round. However I think it is very easy to make the step from morally permissible to morally obligated. Let's consider this for a moment. Can we within any realm of plausibility say an animal can have the right to life but not the right to have that right recognized? That makes absolutely no sense! If I have the right to life, then that right necessarily entails that right is recognized. It would be self refuting otherwise. If my right to life is not recognized then I don't really have that right at all. All I have to do is prove animals have rights and then the step to proving humans should recognize them is easy.Sorry that was rushed.