Animal rights are meaningless from a secular viewpoint

In this round I will go over my opponents attacks on my claims/arguments. I will then go back to reaffirm the attacks I made on his rebuttal that he tried to refute. I will then go back to my case in order to re-negate the resolution. I will then attempt to crystallise all of our claims in the case and relate mine back to topicality. Opponents attacks on my claims: 1) My opponent states that because the legal system does not tie into the overall subjective morality, then it is not relevant to this case. But our legal system is made up of social contract. Social contract is a combination of all morals made up in a society. So I will have to fundamentally disagree and say that my comparison stands. 2) I made the claim that because humans are cognitive beings and they develop morals through society, then they will choose, on there own free will, not to harm something if there is no gain. Unless an animal or human is mentally psychotic then there would be no use in doing an action in which there is no benefit. Because most humans would see no benefit in harming animals to the point of cruelty, this point stands. 3) Onto my claim that religion demotes animal rights. Secularism is the opposite of spiritualism and religion. Therefore if i am arguing for secularism and arguing against religion on the topic of animals rights. If you are taking away my attacks on religious views of animal rights then you are taking away the core of my argument. Religion is the very thing that secularism combats. If all examples that are religious are considered null and void than secularism stands because it is the only system besides religious systems. Therefore subjectively and objectively secularist beliefs on animal rights are morally right no matter what they advocate because it is the only system if you expel religious examples. My opponent went on to state that according to my view, morals are arbitrary because its made up of peoples personal opinions of morals. But my opponent is making an is-ought fallacy here. He is stated that if humans have morals, then they ought to derive them from something else rather than society or themselves. My opponent has stated no proof that morals must be derived from something else so this point sands as void. Furthermore if secularists are not currently morally blinded or misguided. Why are the incarceration rates for secularists so low (see first speech for evidence) compared to the ratio of non-secularists? 4) My opponent made a straw man with my last claim that secularism binds people to moral guidance. He stated that I advocated that “religion is not the only moral standard”. Yet I never even argued that religion was a moral standard in the first place. My opponent stated I made a straw man for arguing against the claim: “I did not state that secular people have no moral guidance”. So if he argues that secular people do have moral guidance, then why do animal rights fall flat of that moral guidance. Your argument is of natural selection but this is a straw man argument on your behalf because I never made any claims surrounding natural selection. You do not have to believe in natural selection to be secular. Rebuttal to his/her defence of his/her case: 1) My opponent stated that my attack was irrelevant on his first claim because animals are not making moral decisions. But we are talking about humans in this scenario, not animals. Humans make moral decisions. Animals do not. This only supports my case as the resolution is about secular humans. 2) My opponent claimed that not all secular people believe in the Theory of Evolution. He/She then quickly assumed to jumping that I do. The Theory of Evolution is not at debate here. The debate is about morality and the decisions humans make about animals. You cannot compare the Theory of evolution to this case because as you said, not all secular beliefs include the Theory of Evolution. All secularism is, is a refutation of religion, it does not make an argument past it. That is called Atheism. Secularism is the counter argument to religion, and thus does not have to present an actual plan. All secularism does is disprove religion, not prove anything else. 3) My opponent makes another is ought fallacy by saying that if humans are part of the natural world and survival of the fittest occurs, humans ought not to treat animals with rights. Yet this is another straw man because I never asserted the natural selection claim. The whole framework of his case refutes natural selection by default, but I have not made a single claim on/about Darwin’s theory of Evolution or natural selection so these arguments are null and void. Furthermore even if I made the claim of natural selection his case contradicts natural selection. According to the Theory of Evolution animals must be killed/eaten in order for the evolutionary process to work. But he states: “The fact remains that an animal's 'right' to not be killed remains violable.” Conclusion: My opponents case goes well into detail. However, he's arguing that morality cannot co-exist with Darwin’s theory of Evolution, a claim I have never made. My opponents flow jumps from Darwin’s theory of evolution to more is-ought fallacy assumptions. He has made straw man and is ought fallacies in both of his speeches. His entire first speech is based on the assumption that secularism equates to natural selection. As I stated earlier secularism is only the refutation of religion. On balance my opponents case has been incoherent with topicality and he/she still refuses to recognise the basis of my case and my points.