Do non-human animal have rights

I am sorry about the previous round, I had an after school activity and my bus schedules were messed up so by the time I got home, it was too late :(. But i provided refutation for both of Con's rebuttals to make up for my previous round. I wll flow through the organization my opponent has, then move to weighing. I will start with his 1st rebuttal, then move to his second. First rebuttalFirst, my opponent states animals are recognized as individuals. Wether or not they are does deduce that as a whole, they deserve justice and require animal rights. His other point only reaffirms me by showing the cruelty of HUMANS, not animals, organization's actions were defined by humans, not by the animals so don't let this trick you. Contention 1I agree with the nutrition portion since it provides a reason. However, the pleasure is. My opponent goes on to state how humans are the greatest and how they exploit animals. But by stating this, my opponent acknowledges that without rights, humans would be free to do this. So, we then understand with rights, animals wont be exploited/abused for no reason. First, my opponent attempts to refute my just society point by talking about how humans abuse animals. Yet this clearly shows that animals DO need rights or they will be abused by humans. He follows up with a survival of the fittst point, my highly doubt that struggle involves brutally torturing other species for no reason. Contention 2An entire contention about the ruthlessness of humans. Yet it involves no personal interaction by any other animal. So, you assert animal have done nothing no to deserve rrights, and human ruthlessness demands animals have right or they will be exploited. Contention 3Outlines categories for animals then specifies i sall argue for each category he lists. Pets-Provide happiness for heir owners, may have a chance of being abused(causing a life of fear and mistrust), and a chance of being killed for fun. Don't believe me? Here are some links:. http://www.nbcdfw.com...http://stopanimalabuse.blogspot.com...same case in following 2 links. http://www.nowpublic.com...http://abclocal.go.com...This clearly shows animals NEED rights or they will be constantly and bruttaly exploited, just for the pleasure of humans(as Con states)Pests- a form of necessary action, therefor i do not have to argue this. Domestic animals-A useless point. My opponents believes animals will have the 'right' to choose, but look to the rights I provided(which were not refuted) and denote this entire argument for domestic animals should be dropped since 1)it is still necessary action(nutrition), thus i do not have to refute this 2)Right that Con outlines is completely nonsensical. Wild Animals-"Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurd". Quite a contradicting statement. The opponent basically states we should outline their protections, but not acknowledging what outlines their protections. First, since my opponent agrees things should be done for their welfare, he then interprets that their welfare should always be preserved. Thus my opponent AGREES that animals have rights. Contention 4Another weak point, because if they cause harm, then it would be necessary action to harm such things as viruses and detrimental bacteria. And finally this recognizing that we have the ability to reduce animal suffering stems from recognizing that those animals have a claim on their life as well as preserving their life and safety. Thus concedes to the idea that animals have rights. Second RebuttalOn to his case. my opponent lists what I outline. But again, clearly denote that my opponent supports me with his statement, " Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whales. Many diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly. " This clearly denotes that my opponent agrees there are things human ought not do to animals and thus he agrees the rights should be recognized by a just society. Then my opponent lists five points which i will now refute: -"Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights"So, since other animals are more simple and maybe even can't defend themselves as well as humans, they should not recieve rights to outline their protections? A very weak point the Con makes which can be matched to Hitler's idea that Jews had no rights, because they were inferior to the German race. Con should give a little more thought to this point. -"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humansI must digress. Animals are defined by that habitat, help refertilize our habitat so trees can grow so organisms have more oxygen, and only attack through self defense. Humans destroy habitats to ake their own, pollute, and murder senslessly. Unless my opponent wants he animals to cause destruction too, i stand animals must have rights. -It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Nutrition i agree(necessary use as stated in my case), but pleasure is another reason why they deserve rights. Otherwise they will continuously be exploited by humans and maybe even driven to a point endangerement. - Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" arehypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Their actions are not influenced by animals, nor does it show malicous actions by animals, it just shows the cruelty of humanity and how it extends not only to animals, but humans too. So again i stand animals must have rights since they were not responsile for the actions of a human organization. - Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. Wether they are related to us or not, they influence their enviroment and even help us and we return the favor through sensless killing. I must urge that animals require rights. Weighing Clearly, my opponents arguments were refuted while my case stands. In fact, Con only attacked my case in the second rebuttal (and not even my entire case), and i properly defended, which means all I provided remains standing. I am also winnin on logic since my opponent contradicts himself at some points. I also outline animal rights in my case as:Animal rights outlined by Respect, No exploitation, Allowed to procreate, No cruel acts, no killing for sport/no reason. My opponent on the other hand provides no outline of animal rights. Furthermore, I show how my stance is correct, show that my opponent RECOGNIZES THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS HUMANS SHOULD NOT DO TO ANIMALS, and in turn prove that my opponent as well as I recognize animals deserve some rights. . Finally, I am winning the BoP since i succesfully prove animals do require rights, while my opponent fails to uphold his.