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

I shall refute his argument in a linear fashion, and demonstrate a serious hole in it: ==================== Sentience in animals ==================== Why does my opponent give me a Wikipedia link showing that there is self-awareness in some animals? How is this even related to my argument saying that since all animals are sentient, they deserve rights? In fact, my opponent's link can at best be used as an argument for MY SIDE. There really is nothing much left to say here - I've got nothing to refute but in fact more to gain from his link. My opponent seriously needs to focus on this argument, since if I can maintain this ethical foundation, then his position seems grim. ==================== Justification for eating animals ==================== ---->>>"Humans naturally have evolved to eat meat. It is in human nature. .. Humans still evolved to eat meat, and we still eat meat, so we should remain eating meat. " --> And if you bothered to read the description of the appeal to nature fallacy, you would realize that the ethical foundation for eating animals CAN NOT come from the fact that it's natural. ---->>>"However, it is also in human nature to try to cooperate with others to solve disputes, before resorting to murder, and this has evolved into modern government. Other animals kill each other to end disputes immediately, unlike humans, who try to reach a consensus first. " --> The sociological construct between humans and animals isn't as wide as you make it to be. Yes, we do have several distinguishing factors such as a language, a civilization/culture, and higher cognitive faculties. These are solely what allow us to dominate the Earth. HOWEVER, we still fight, we still murder, we still steal, and so on and so forth. These behaviors can easily be explained by evolution, meaning it's present in most animals today. So is it okay to commit murder in a heat of passion because it's natural? NO. You aren't even addressing my counterarguments, but simply going around them. ==================== Using animals for clothing ==================== ---->>>"If we kill an animal to eat it, we might as well salvage its inedible skin for use as clothing as well. " --> So my opponent concedes his original argument, and basically aligns it with his previous justification for eating animals. Okay, but of course his argument for eating animals is equally empty of reason. So until he can rescue the first argument, both of these arguments will sink. ==================== Animal testing ==================== ---->>>"It doesn't mean we shouldn't, either. " -->Uh. .. YES IT DOES. My opponent basically just said the opposite of my argument, a claim with no evidence or reason to back it up. I stated that just because something isn't smart enough, doesn't mean it deserves less rights. All my opponent said was the opposite. A completely unsupported argument. ---->>>"Also, lab rats (. http://en.wikipedia.org......) would go extinct if we didn't bother to breed them for usage in experiments. " -->Which is why it should be our responsibility now to take care of them. Because it was humans who first bred them purely for our uses, and it should be our responsibility to fix this. I can imagine programs trying to find ways to integrate them into a natural evnvironment, or maybe even creating one for them. ==================== Animal entertainment ==================== ---->>>"It still ends up to the advantage for the animals. " -->Uh, not always. Have you ever seen circus animals? Besides that, there are many cases of animal abuse in domestic homes - a simple flip on the television can attest to that. ---->>>"It is more ethical to feed an animal for entertainment than to not feed it and not use it for entertainment, especially when the animal has no other source of food. " -->Supplying animals with food (their lack of food most likely results from the spread of humans) is a good thing, but forcing them to be your pets and/or for human entertainment is NOT ethical. It's like me going up to a hobo, giving him food and shelter, but forcing him to entertain me. If the hobo wants out, he should be allowed to. But can an animal do that? No. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent stated that he has produced a "fresh argument against the sentient point". I really hope that this isn't true. He has no substantial argument against the ethical underpinnings of my argument, and every other example of applied ethics (not using animals for food, clothing, etc. ) crumbles in succession. If my opponent really wants to refute my ethical basis, he should start by NOT giving me links that support my position.