(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

argument 1. Natural rights do not exist, therefore it is insensible to grant all natural rights " to anything. there are 2 things I picked up from this argument; 1. Rights should only be granted if said being can also conform to this right. 2. Rights are only granted if the right makes society more efficient. I would like to point out that it is necessary for a carnivores animal to hunt for survival, these animals are badly adapted to plant biased diets. Although it is possible for this animal to get nutrients from plants it does not know how. Humans however do have a choice, we can survive without harming (or at least decreasing the amount of suffering) experienced by other creatures on this planet. The fact of necessity means that an animal can have the right to kill without losing its right to life. "If granting as certain rights is beneficial, then I am not opposed to granting it. " the right to life is beneficial (resulting in good; favorable or advantageous. ) just like my right to life is beneficial. It is important to note that I am the one who benefits from my right to life not whoever wants me dead. it may be that what you meant to say was beneficial to human society. Here are 5 ways humans benefit from animal rights. 1. Less abuse and less exploitation of vulnerable human beings. (animal abuse increases chance of someone abusing/murdering a human. ) 2. Less world hunger and starvation. (cows eat 70-80% of corn produced) 3. A healthier population (many studies show that a plant biased diet decreases a range of deceases including: cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and obesity) 4. Less destruction of the planet. 5. Fewer dangerous drugs being tested on humans. (human biology differs greatly from that of other animals, many drugs that are tested on animals and labeled safe for humans have shown to be deadly. ) rights do not always lead to a more efficient society (No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. [1]) slaves have shown to be an extremely efficient labor force. (Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. ) this has gotten in the way of our legal system many times. argument 2. The act of granting rights is given by a defined sovereignty, and animals do not have a defined sovereignty. most farm animals are not aggressive and respect other beings right to life (such as the farmer's right to life), the animal respects this right regardless of any sovereignty. I find it hard to believe that farmed animals purposely seek to murder other beings, (accidents such as squishing a bug do not count). in some places disrespecting others rights do not take that right away from you, such as murder in Australia. "I think that my opponent would not dispute that animals possess a much lesser degree of sentience than humans. " incorrect, by the definition we are using humans are on the exact same "degree of sentience" as many animals. It can be argued that humans are less sentient that other creatures. Such as killer wale's witch have more "parts" of the brain, they have 1 extra "part," scientist have concluded that this part is used for emotions. argument 3. Granting animals rights does not benefit society. you also suggested this in your first argument and I gave you five arguments against it. Food is not the only aspect that needs analyzing when proving/disproving this. There are two things wrong with your statement that testing on animals aids medical research. 1. Its incorrect, the biology of a human is to different to that of popular testing animals to aid any research. 2. Animal research is more commonly used in other industry's such as sport and beauty. "I'm not sure how my opponent would classify chickens when it comes to sentience, since chicken brain is the size of a coin" chickens are sentient, you will find the cut off point for sentient creatures (according to most activist's) is the ability to fell pain. Chickens fit into that definition. How we are defining the word is however is "animals with a functioning nervous system. " this definition is also inclusive of chickens. final argument-rights are biased on many things including morals. [2] pt1. Human animals have rights. pt2. There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals. pt3. Therefore adult mammals must have rights too. if you can morally justify your meat biased diet then by all means continue it. If it was justifiable I'm sure I would have heard why by now. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.bbc.co.uk...