Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

Since I have limited character space I'll get right to it. The main premise of this debate will revolve around the word "ought". As ought implies a moral obligation, the debate should center around if humanity has the moral obligation to give animals basic rights. There are two basic frameworks I will detail, into which my contentions will link into to ultimately negate the resolution. Each framework operates independently of the other framework, but the contentions link into both. Framework 1: Utilitarianism Utilitarianism operates under the premise that every morally good action must maximize to the fullest extent possible while minimizing the pain to the fullest extent possible. So if killing one person would save the lives of five people, under a utilitarian mindset I would be morally justified in killing that single person. If I need to expand on this idea further, I can in the next round. But I feel that it's fairly basic, so I don't need to waste characters explaining it further. Framework 2: Egoism Egoism, specifically weak egoism as I will be specifically defending, is the moral belief that intentions, not the actions themselves, are what obligate us to do certain things. Egoism specifically speaks to the fact that we act only out of our own self-interest (even when doing works of charity or generosity) and that we are not morally obligated to do anything that is not desirable to us. For example, if it is not in my interest to give the homeless man on the side of the street the money he needs to buy a meal, egoism defends that I have no moral obligation to give him that money. And before my opponent argues volunteerism against this, volunteerism does not disprove egoism because whatever that was desirable about volunteering (volunteer hours, networking, or simply the good feeling you get from helping others out) made it in our self-interest to volunteer. If that desirable trait was not there, then we would have no self-interest to volunteer, thus making it not morally obligatory. My contention is that if we allow animals access to basic rights (more specifically I will be attacking the right to life wtihout slaughter), then the world will end in nuclear fall-out. Let me explain: Contention One: Slaughter The main argument made by most supporters of animal rights is that the pointless slaughter (for whatever purpose) is done so inhumanely and so grotesquely that it's entirely immoral and they shouldn't be killed in such a way. However, the standard practice of slaughter (which is the slitting of the juggular artery in the neck to allow the animal to bleed out), is necessary for animals that are being slaughtered for meat. Giving them the right to life and disbanding this practice means one simple, yet devastating end: we have no more meat. Contention Two: The Meat Industry When people think of the meat industry, we think of the old book "The Jungle" that exposed meat processing facilities as horrible, gross places to work and that are completely unsanitary and inhumane. However, the meat industry expands far further than that. Grocery stores, deli's, restraunts, venders, shipping companies, processing facilities, all of these places are a part of the meat industry. The meat industry is, arguably, the backbone of the American economy. In 2009, the meat industry employed more than 526,000 workers in packing and processing industries alone(1). The combined salaries of these workers totaled more than $19 billion(1). Every company involved in the meat industry, along with suppliers, distributers, retailers, and ancillary industries, employed a combined total of 6.2 million workers(1), who salaries combined to be more than $200 billion(1). Through production and distribution linkages, the meat industry impacts firms in all 509 sectors of the economy, in every single state and congressional district in the US(1). Without this vital industry to the US economy, we would see a collapse, if not a complete meltdown, of our economy on a scale much larger than what we see now. The economic ripple effect of this collapse would undoubtedly shut down other world-wide economies, and would lead to a global collapse of economies. So what happens then? Contention Three: NUCLEAR WAR! Yeah that's right. Nuclear war will be the result if we shut down the global economy. This may sound like a far-fetched idea, but it's really not. World War II, for example, was started when an economically bankrupt Germany began vying for power and control in an attempt to re-assert their dominance after a crushing defeat in World War I. With modern technologies and weapons of mass destruction, the death toll would sky-rocket well above that death-toll. Lieutenant Colonel Bearden explains(2) that "As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. . .. [T]he stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of (WMDs) . .. are certain to be released. . .. [O]nce a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. . .. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes. . .. [R]apid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed. " This end-of-the-world impact links into both frameworks because: a) This impact links into utilitarianism because by allowing animals to have rights, we risk the end of the world, which will kill the animals anyway. Slaughtering them for meat now saves the rest of humanity, which is a net-positive result, and thusly obligates us to not give them rights. b) This impact links into egoism because it wouldn't be in our self-benefit to prevent the slaughtering of animals if it means that we all die from nuclear fallout anyway. As it wouldn't be in our self-interest, we possess no moral obligation to give animals rights. Thusly, because the fate of the world hangs in the balance, you must negate. Sources: (1) - . http://www.meatami.com... (2) - (Liutenant Colonel Bearden, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000, . http://groups.yahoo.com...)