"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

If this is my opponent's only counterargument, then it's entirely misdirected. Nothing in my argument even remotely hints at claiming that animals are as intelligent as humans, or can 'ask' for equal rights. My argument simply stated that because animals are sentient, it should be followed that the right to life and well-being should be derived. My opponent still has a lot of work to do with this argument." My apologies. Maybe this will be more relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org... Apes, dolphins, elephants, and magpies. Not exactly the animals we eat and wear and all that. "--> My opponent's entire argument commits the appeal to nature fallacy[1]. His argument basically says that because humans evolved to eat meat (which is partly true), then it should be our right to eat meat. This is entirely false. Just because it's natural does NOT make it right ,via the appeal to nature fallacy. For example, it's very common for animals to kill each other end disputes. So should humans be allowed to murder each other when they get into arguments? My opponent's line of reasoning says yes - demonstrating that his argument is bogus." Humans naturally have evolved to eat meat. It is in human nature. However, it is also in human nature to try to cooperate with others to solve disputes, before resorting to murder, and this has evolved into modern government. Other animals kill each other to end disputes immediately, unlike humans, who try to reach a consensus first. Humans still evolved to eat meat, and we still eat meat, so we should remain eating meat. "--> You have yet to show why eating animals is moral, so the first part doesn't even need to be refuted again. And not using their pelts would be a waste? First of all, wasting something is not immoral. However, even if we are to assume it is this DOESN'T justify using animals for cloths because you have yet to show why it's moral to kill them in the first place." There. My new argument re-supports this. Wasting something is not immoral, but nor is putting it to good use. If we kill an animal to eat it, we might as well salvage its inedible skin for use as clothing as well. "--> Or we don't have to experiment on either animals or humans. The thing is human testing involves consent, which is why it's allowed. Animal testing has NO consent from the animals - they don't get a say. Just because they don't have a voice (in the metaphorical sense) doesn't mean we should use them to our whims." It doesn't mean we shouldn't, either. Also, lab rats (http://en.wikipedia.org...) would go extinct if we didn't bother to breed them for usage in experiments. "--> Because hiring people involves the people CONSENTING. They have to agree to the salaries and expectations of their job as entertainers. Do animals get to say no? Of course not." It still ends up to the advantage for the animals. It is more ethical to feed an animal for entertainment than to not feed it and not use it for entertainment, especially when the animal has no other source of food. "I have defended my philosophical argument for animal rights, and shown why every example of how they can be used is unjust. I await my opponent's response." I have reinforced all of my arguments, as well as producing a fresh argument against the sentient point. I await my opponent's response, as well.