This house believe that animals have rights

IF you want to have a conversation about semantics well that's another debate. If we don't establish our understanding from the onset this debate will never get off the ground. Although it is technically considered as a rebuttal - definition corrections shouldn't be posted in the penultimate round. After this round there wouldn't be much time to correct arguments and gain a proper understanding of the debate itself. I didn't claim that you used Wikipedia - I stated that you used it. A claim is not the same as a fact. Okay that's a fair point but if you use Wikipedia in future it saves time if you explain your reasons behind it. You third contradiction states that the reason that some animals (pets) come onto your lap is because they view you as their pack leader or their alpha. However this is incorrect. When I was young I had a pet cat and he went onto my lap, my brother's lap, my father's lap and my mother's lap. Are you suggesting that my cat saw the whole family as alpha males. That would be highly unlikely since most animals only have one alpha males - that includes cats. Is there another explanation? As I said before they seek comfort and warmth. My opponent has also said that dogs are supposed to hunt in packs with an alpha - he did not say alphas. Therefore this backs up my claims. I understand why you gave me the explanation of the brain but as I have said previously - there are people that have mental disabilities which don't allow them to think morally or rationally. Babies have the strongest rights out there. If you want to have a huge debate with UNICEF, UN, EU etc about the rights of babies then go ahead. Why wouldn't babies have rights? You haven't commented on it so I don't have a lot of information on what exactly you mean by this but I know for a fact Article 2: Children must be protected from discrimination. Article 3: The best interests of the child (taking into account the rights and duties of parents). Article 6: The right to life. I will not go into too much detail because that is going off topic. I would also accept a debate with you on this topic separately. Lets continue ... I understand that we are debating about animal rights but your arguments basically state that anyone or thing without the capacity to think rationally or morally doesn't deserve rights. Unless you can provide me with a reason to why animals should be treated differently to both babies and mentally disabled people then I don't see how your argument even makes sense. I spoke about human rights in the previous round because I was using it as a comparison. My opponent has (again) avoided trying to contradict one of my points. If we are at the top of the food chain does that mean we should act with no morality. If we give animals no rights then we are acting like animals and therefore should be considered as animals. This would mean that we don't deserve rights. Regarding my opponents final paragraph, if you didn't already know there are a huge number of issues being discussed and dealt with. People don't just do one thing at a time. In the United States Congress many issues are being discussed in huge numbers. What makes you think that one issue will prevent them from dealing with the threat of ISIS and any other major issues? Now, I shall explain why the opposition does not deserve to win. The opposition has missed out and avoided certain arguments put forward by the proposition (as stated earlier). The opposition has also claimed that babies do not have rights which is false - this means that either the proposition does not know much about human rights or the proposition's sources are unreliable. The opposition has also said that animals don't deserve rights because they cannot think morally or rationally. The opposition has failed to provide a valid reason to why their argument does not refer to people with mental disabilities - all they have said is that this is a debate about animals not humans (according to their definition which has not been changed, a human counts as an animal). The opposition claims that they have used rational arguments backed up with research and philosophical opinions. Firstly, the opposition has not provided a more rational argument. The basic message provided by the opposition is that humans are better than animals because they have better thinking capabilities. I have looked through the oppositions argument and I cannot see very many philosophical opinions or even arguments. I have already explained why the definition correction is not a contradiction - I didn't even change the definition I merely pointed out that there was a mistake with it and that it should be corrected in the next round ( which it wasn't)! All responses were either weak or off topic. Some arguments were even missed out so I don't see the any truth in the third claim made by my opponent. The opposition has made off topic and some false arguments that were actually quite shocking. If you want to vote for someone who claims that babies don't have rights and that anyone who cannot think rationally or morally don't deserve rights then you can do that. If you vote for the proposition then you are voting for somebody who believes that babies deserve and already do receive rights and that disability doesn't matter to whether you receive rights or not. Weak sources have been used by my opponent. Weak arguments have been used by my opponent. No sources were posted in the final round. Vote Pro! Sources https://www.google.co.uk...