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

Along with responding to my argument, he laid a cause for his own. Therefore, I will first respond to his rebuttal then attack his argument in a linear fashion. ==================== Sentience of animals ==================== ---->>>"I say that animals haven't been proven to be capable of rational thinking beyond their natural instincts, and are much less intelligent than humans, and don't even have any way of asking for equal rights. " --> 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. ==================== CON's argument for eating ==================== Religious views don't concern me - if you want to argue for them, you have to first show their validity. This will apply to every argument after this, to avoid redundancy. ---->"People evolved from animals. Many animals eat meat by nature. Humans must have evolved to eat meat, because they have two canines (sharp teeth) which allow them to eat meat. .. Thus, humans eat meat by nature, so humans should not be devoid of their right to eat meat. " --> 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. ==================== CON's argument for wearing ==================== ---->>>"Eating animals and not using their pelts for anything would be a waste. " --> 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. ==================== CON's argument for experimenting ==================== ---->>>"It's either we experiment on animals, or we experiment on humans. " --> 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. ==================== CON's argument for entertaining ==================== ---->>>"We hire people to entertain us. Why not pay animals food to entertain us as well? " --> 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. ==================== Conclusion ==================== 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. ---References--- 1. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...