Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

BOP: The legal rights my opponent is trying to get me to fulfill is incompatable with actual reality. If we were to follow the burden my opponent is trying to place on me, I would have to justify why my pet cat has the ability to vote for the next president, which is highly non-sensical. In effect, he's attempting to stick me with a burden both of us know is unfulfillable. My burden is a) still in line with the resolution, as when we respect their capabilities, the respect for life and happiness come with it and b) more fair since it is actually logically provable, as giving your dog Fido the right to bear arms and the right to vote are logically nonsensical. Besides that, my opponent conceded the second Singer card I brought up to warrant my burden. Thusly, the burden on the pro debater is to prove that justice requires equal consideration of interests. Since I'm doing that already, and will be further doing that at the end of this round, you vote pro. Nussbaum 2:My opponent misconstrues this argument once again and completely ignores the previous arguments in defense of it. By equal capabilities, as I stated last round, I meant that capabilities are not unique to one simple species. This doesn't necessarily lead to equal consideration. What this tells about the consideration of the capabilities of animals is that if animals have intrinsically valuable capabilities, justice must allow them to flourish. This is proven by Nussbaum 3 and 4, both of which have gone entirely conceded throughout this debate. His argument that human life is more valuable than dog life is still unsupported. He tries to support it with two things, however both fail. 1 fails because my argument in no way implies that. This misconstrues what I'm actually saying. 2 fails because what this justification is saying is that, basically, it's right because it just is. Mhmmm, totally logically valid. Con claims that when we kill, we deprive it of it's capabilities. I agree, but this doesn't actually refute any of my evidence. As long as we take into consideration of the animal's capabilities before hand, as the CONCEDED Daws analysis states, then killing them is alright. I will go into further explanation as to what this means later, where he specifically adressed Daws. Con claims that animals have capabilities that would be detrimental if allowed to flourish. I agree, but this was already discussed in Nussbaum 4, which has gone entirely conceded throughout this debate. Capabilities must have intrinsic value (i. e. a tiger's right to exercise it's predatory capabilities as to avoid the pain of frustration). In so far as this went conceded, this argument is null. Con argues that since killing deprives animals of their capabilities, then my position is logically incoherent. Not true. As the CONCEDED Daws evidence explicitly states that as long as we are taking into consideration of their capabilities (i. e. not depriving them of their capabilities), then the HUMANE killing of them is justified. My position is still logically coherent. Con claims that since I admitted that justice doesn't prohibit owning animals, that justice doesn't require it. Again, I ask you look to the CONCEDED Daws evidence. Apparently, my opponent has realized the gravity of his error in conceding it in his first round, and now has decided to go all-out in trying to refute it. I ask the voters to look back to the last round and realize that he made, literally, no arguments against Daws. I extended it clearly as a conceded argument. Prefer that link and clearly extend it across the round. Con claims that he had, actually, not plagiarized, but I ask that you refer to the parts of the argument he DID quote Posner on and did not give the credit for. This is the very definition of plagiarism, quoting someone else's work while not giving the original author credit, and I ask that he be deducted in a conduct point at the least, the argument dropped at the most to punish bad behaviour and conduct. Con claims that since I didn't say WHY it was an appeal to emotions, then it isn't fallacious. But this only a) concedes that it IS a fallacious appeal to emotions and b) presupposes why I have to justify your argument being something. The voters can read, I merely need to point out that the argument is a fallacious appeal to emotions. But to appease you, I shall explain why it is. The entire premise of Posner's argument is, literally, saying "Who would let a dog bite a baby? I mean, it's a freaking baby! " This only just appeals to the emotions of the voter with no actual warrant for truth, and thus is a fallacious appeal to emotions. Con claims that living is irrelevant to sentience and consciousness. But I'd like to point out what I thought was pretty obvious before, but one cannot be sentient and conscious in the way the resolution implies if you are not alive. Computers are not alive, hence they do not deserve consideration. Once they gain life, hence gaining sentience and consciousness, then they would then deserve consideration, as I stated last round. He then tries to state things that are alive (i. e. the example of animals and rats) that don't have consideration. Thanks, that's the entire point of this debate. I'm saying they should. Con argues the same property argument I already refuted above. Refer to the conceded Daws evidence again to refute this argument. He seems to be missing the point of what it's saying, so I will re-state it again. What Daws is saying is that as long as we a) give consideration to the animal's capabilities (i. e. not arbitrarily deprive them of their capabilities) and b) treat them in a humane manner, then killing them and owning them is justified. This doesn't change whether or not they have rights, which I posit they do. He's essentially grasping at straws now that he realizes he shouldn't have conceded Daws in his last round. All of my opponents arguments have been refuted. My case can be clearly extended across the flow. So this debate comes down to a few things:1. He's entirely dropped his case. No extensions of anything. Thusly, he cannot garner offense off of it. The only talking point left in this round is the pro case. Thus, at the least, you can vote pro right now on a risk of offense, as my case is the only case left standing and extended. 2. My opponent has conceded too much evidence on the pro case for his arguments to logically hold. He has conceded Nussbaum 3, which proves that animals have capabilities that justice must allow to flourish, Nussbaum 4, that refutes a portion of his arguments already made (the one with the grizzly bear), and the Rowlands evidence for the second time, which says that if we deny animals their rights, we will eventually have OUR rights denied, which provides a unique harm to negating the resolution. In so far as he's conceding all of this, I'm providing a) a clear link into my framework and my BOP, b) arguments against his rebuttals, and c) a unique harm to negating the resolution as a reason why we ought to affirm. Since I'm doing all that is necessary for me to win, plus a little extra, we can vote pro right now, regardless of the rest of the rounds.3. My opponent conceded the Daws evidence in the last round, and then tried to bring up new arguments against it this round once he realized the gravity of his error. I ask that voters realize that a concession counts as an argument being verified as truth in debate, and clearly extend it to take out a) my opponent's case, and b) the vast majority of my opponent's arguments.4. I'm refuting all my opponent's arguments, thus my case is clearly being extended across the flow.