Plants ought to have the right to vote

I will not refute anything in their R4 as that would not be fair (since they cannot address my R4). I will however, make a statement about their R4 at the end. === Utilitarianism === a) Guardianship My opponent states that guardianship to vote “is not a thing. ” I never said that it was. On page 20 of my original R2 [1], it states “People who need help in voting because of a disability have the right to help from a person of their choice. This can be a family member, a friend, a caregiver, a poll worker or almost anyone else. ” Since plants are physically unable to vote, their right to vote would be passed on to the person of their choice. My opponent attempts to dismiss this by stating that “there is no way for a mentally incompetent being to be able to vote at all…” However, we are arguing about giving plants the right to vote. Mental incompetency removes the right to vote. Because of this, my opponent cannot argue that plants have the right to vote, but cannot because of mental incompetency, since that is no right to vote. “Laws that bar people who are mentally incompetent… are used to take away a person’s right to vote…” [1, page 12]. It would be an argument of semantics (and thus a violation of my opponent’s own rules) to suggest that they have the right to vote, but they don’t because of mental incompetency (see R1 rules). b) Minimum Wage This Minimum wage argument falls under the ethic compass of Utilitarianism, to show that under such ethical codes, we ought not grant plants the right to vote. Humanitarianism falls outside the realm of this ethical code. Also, Slavery is not a net benefit to the economy [2], just saying. c) Destroys agriculture and all of farming. My opponent concedes this aspect as well, once again turning to humanitarianism, which does not fall under Utilitarianism. As such, we can see that from a Utilitarian stand point, there is no ethical reason to grant plants any rights, let alone the right to vote. === Argumentation Ethics === Granted, it would be better if I called this “Discourse Ethics” however, I did expand upon this to my opponent. This is an ethical system that defines ethics and rights by our ability to engage in Discourse and rational arguments. By not being able to engage in discourse, plants have no rights under Discourse ethics or Argumentation ethics. === Humanitarianism === My opponent does not advocate Humanitarianism as a moral code in his opening round, but brings it up extensively in his rebuttals. As such, I will address it now as a counter to their rebuttals. Humanitarianism ethics is “the doctrine that humanity’s obligations are concerned wholly with the welfare of the human race. ” [3] As such, plant rights do not fall under humanitarianism. === Conclusion === My opponent has not once provided an ethical construct that justifies providing any rights to plants, let alone the right to vote. I have provided two of the most common ethical systems and shown how neither of them suggest that plants ought to have the right to vote. My opponent has kind of provided one in their refutations (but none in their original arguments) which has been easily defeated. As such there are no grounds left to stand on to support the resolution. Thank you, === Closing remarks === I strongly recommend double checking every source and every claim of this debate. While I will not refute anything my opponent said in their R4, they stated “They argue that giving plants the right to vote has an impack positively on the economy (they conceded this in R2). ” Please look back over my R2 to see if I ever “conceded” this, especially in my arguments about Utilitarianism and how this would destroy the economy. Thank you, [1] . http://www.bazelon.org... [2] . http://www.economist.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...