Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

Sparing the formalities and going line by line. " I do agree that the lives . .. "This means that at the very least, you evaluate the round under a util framework. " Furthermore, is he saying . .. " Here my opponent is essentially strawmanning egoism. The function of egoism is not to determine what is morally good or bad, but rather to determine a difference between moral permissability and moral obligation and to refute that things can ever be morally obligatory. As the example he used doesn't fit in with this, then it doesn't actually refute egoism. " For example, if I see a girl drowning . .. "Here my opponent makes the same jump in logic for going from moral permissibility to moral obligation that he's been making all debate long. In this situation, under an egoistic framework, saving the girl drowning would be a morally permissible action. However, my opponent's jump here to morally obligatory is a) unwarranted, and b) wrong to begin with. I suppose a lot of these errors come from me not clearly explaining egoism. Allow me to remedy the error (this is just a further clarification upon egoism. Thus it doesn't count as a new argument). Egoism essentially denies that things can ever be morally obligatory due to the fact that individuals act based on self-interest. I. e. If I wanted better grades in school, I would go for tutoring before and/or after school to receive help. There is no moral obligation upon me to go for tutoring, but rather it's my own self-interest that's driving me to do these things. Take away the self-interest in my grades, and there isn't any reason for me to go for tutoring. This implies that whenever there's no self-interest in doing an action, there isn't a reason to do such action. If moral obligations existed, then my actions wouldn't depend on whether I held interest in the action or not - I would just do it anyway regardless of whether I liked it or not. This means two things for terms of the resolution:1. If giving animals rights is not within our self-interest, then we have no obligation to give them these rights. Resolution negated.2. You a priori negate because if the morally obligatory nature of an action depends upon our self-interest in the action, then it's logical to say that the action isn't obligatory in the first place, as if it were morally obligatory, it wouldn't be dependent upon some outside factor. This means that even if my opponent is winning 100% of their case, and showing how giving animals rights is an amazing thing to do, it can still never be morally obligatory, and thus he would fail to uphold his BOP. Resolution negated. "I also raised the point last round . .. "I never dropped this. I explicitly pointed out that, as per the wording of your paragraph, it didn't actually apply to what I was talking about. The moral framework I establish in my case doesn't apply to only humans, ergo the argument following your statement has no applicability. Judges, don't let him extend this out as a dropped argument, as it has no link into my case and thus no impact on how the round goes down. "Con extremely briefly concludes his point . .. "I mean, the logic is pretty straight-forward (not only that but I stated the logic in my case, my opponent just never refutes it). If we give animals basic rights, we give them the right to life. If we give them the right to life, we give them the right not to be killed. Hence, we cannot kill them, and hence no more meat. My opponent also argues that this contention doesn't have an impact, but the impact for this contention is explained further down syllogistically (do not mistake this for me saying my contentions form a syllogism, but rather the impacts flow from one contention to the next. The impact of Contention 1 is nuclear war, as is contention two and contention 3). C1 stands. Extend. "Con makes his mistake by assuming the process . .. "Here my opponent makes the mistake of assuming it would take a long time to actually come about. But this isn't true. Stores and shops nationwide would run out of meat supplies within a matter of months, if not WEEKS, due to consumer demand for these products that are now being taken out of production. Let's face it: if you heard that people weren't selling steak at the grocery store or at your favorite restaurant, wouldn't you go stock up to make sure it wouldn't affect you for a while? The increased number of meat purchases would mean that it would crash nearly instantaneously. ""Grocery stores, deli's, restaurants, venders, . .. "While my opponent has a point, the removal of meat alone would cripple, if not completely collapse most stores and restaurants. Would you go to McDonalds or Subway if all they had was salads and veggie meals? Unless you're a vegetarian/vegan, I think not. This would still cause these places to go out of business, and thus lead to economic collapse. " Nuts, vegetables, fruit and grain industries would all grow . .. "Fair, but I would think not quickly enough to avoid the impact of contention three. The collapse would be almost instantaneous, but a transfer between the two would take much longer. "giving animals rights would quite likely entail more programs . .. "Loss of jobs would outweigh as the programs created wouldn't be nearly enough to replace all the fast food restaurants, sit-down restaurants, ranches, processing plants, etc. C2 stands. Extend. "This argument stems from the second one. " C2 stands. This can be dropped. "I fail to see how a bankrupt Germany"Just an example of how the idea of massive war from economic collapse isn't that far-fetched of an idea. The only application to the debate is just showing it's a feasable impact. It's not in any way essential to my argument. Aside from that my opponent doesn't refute any of C3, so it stands. Extend. PRO CASE:On conditions for rights:I'll concede self-ownership and consciousness due to lack of characters, but even if I conceded my opponent's two refutations, animals must meet all the conditions in order to be applicable. My opponent dropped the 2 other arguments I raised with feelings and intrinsic worth, only addressing self-ownership and consciousness. Extend both and his first premise is still refuted. This right here means resolution negated. On Moral permiss. to moral obligation:"Can we within any realm of plausibility . .. "Yes, very easily actually. If I commit a crime that merits the death penalty, do I get executed? Your position would say no, but this isn't true. Since my actions deemed that I die for the bettering of society or for the maintenence of social laws or codes, my right to life is stripped from me, making it permissible for me to be killed. This jump your making isn't as easy as you're claiming it to be. Without an actual warrant as for why if they have rights then it's morally obligatory to recognize them, then this point falls. Ladies and gentlemen, this debate breaks down very simply. You can negate on a multitude of places:1. Since my opponent's arguments are syllogistic, each premise refuted merits a con vote, as the entire syllogism falls if one premise falls. Thus,a) you negate since animals don't meet all the conditions for rights, which refutes premise 1. And,b) you negate since my opponent never proves a moral obligation, which refutes premise 2 .2. Both frameworks of my case still stand. This means that,a) you negate off of the util impact of nuclear war being the worse impact, and that not giving animals rights prevents this. b) you negate off of the egoism impact of nuclear war as extinction is not in our self-interestc) you negate off of the a priori argument from egoism which implies no moral obligations exist as our actions are dependent upon self-interest. That's 5 different places to negate. And with no place to affirm, the vote is a clear con vote.