Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

I am impressed by the surprisingly well-presented case that my partner has made, and must admit that it has exceeded my expectations. Congratulations on this. Unfortunately, once we peel back the impressive verbiage, the arguments themselves do not do justice to his eloquence on the subject. Ultimately, all these propositions are unconvincing. 1. Social Contract Theory doesn’t apply to Animals. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. Since animals do not have the ability to take part in the social contract and give up sovereignty on their own accord, they are not entitled to the benefits the social contract gives. While the social contract does not apply to animals, it does still govern human behavior. Human behavior with regards to animals remains, after all, human behavior. There is no real attempt by the United States government to write laws that must be obeyed by animals, such as mandating humane hunting of deer by cougars. At any rate, the cougars would only ignore any such laws. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant. 2. Anthropocentrism is and should be the basis of all action Humans inherently support those causes which support us. Whenever we farm, build factories, store goods, engage in commerce, conduct diplomacy, or anything else, our goal is to help humans. Of course I agree with this statement. As I pointed out in the opening round, there are good human-benefiting reasons for animalprotections, especially with regards to protecting the safety and abundance of our food supply, but also for economic reasons. “Helping Humans,” therefore, is the best reason to protect the viability of the ecosystem that we sit atop. 3. The slippery slope of animal welfare. This argument is based on two main propositions: A: Animal welfare laws are applied inconsistently, and therefore should be removed entirely out of fairness, and B: It necessarily follows that if we begin preventing any animal abuse, then we will certainly eventually begin protecting amoebas and bacteria. And humanity will become either hypocrites or extinct. There is also a strong polemicist strain in the argument as presented, as evidenced by the following quote: We support animal rights when it is convenient for us, to protect the cute. Protecting animal rights is inherently hypocritical if we protect some and not others. And if it's not hypocritical, then it's suicidal. Obviously, as I’m sure most readers will have already noted, it is not ‘hypocritical’ to “protect some animals and not others,” it is ‘inconsistent’ to do so. Hypocrisy requires first-person activity, and is irrelevant at any rate. An argument can be ‘hypocritical’ and yet still valid and true – for example a smoker can correctly say that his habit is unhealthy, and that his children ought not to do it. Inconsistently applied laws can still be a great benefit to society, as well. But to answer the argument itself, I point out that, in the case of clause A, my partner is seeking to “make the perfect the enemy of the good,” which is a polemicist fallacy. In clause B, my partner fails to demonstrate how it follows that laws that prevent allowing E. Coli into our food supply, or causing the extinction of a species, will necessarily lead to laws preventing stepping on ants. Additionally, he asserts that the human race will be committing suicide or engaging in hypocrisy – a polemicist argument thatleaves no option for any other outcome. Would the human race not protect itself from extinction, due to animal welfare laws? The idea is laughable. Although my partner points out that many animal welfare laws exist to “protect the cute,” he never explains why this is a concern, or why it should invalidate those laws. The bald eagle, for example, should not have been eliminated from existence simply because we think it is “cute,” or whatnot. My partner will need to explain why “being cute” should be grounds for abuse in the animal kingdom. Here is why he must: If "being cute" is NOT grounds for protection, (when such protections exists) then the opposite must also be true: being cute must be ground for removal of protection. I note that he has conceded the need to defend human laws, and human welfare throughout his OA. As these are also my main arguments for the institution of animal welfare laws, I believe that this should count as an important concession. Humans have a need to govern human behavior - including how humans interact with the world around them.