Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

On my opponent's case1. I fully respect the majority rule in a democratic society. The issue here is if we were going to allow majority rule(of the population, not voters here) to be the deciding factor in a debate, then a person would only need a public poll from Gallup to win absolutely anything. Debates on the merit of any specific policy would be irrelevant. Ultimately, it would mean every other argument stated here, for and against, is irrelevant, and I do not believe that to be true. Neither, I think, does my opponent.2,3,4,5,6. I add in 3 here because my opponent is making the same rebuttal as in the others.My partner makes the case that we should spare them mistreatment if it serves our interests, I agree, and the debate is settled.The statement here encapsulates my opponent's arguments fairly well for the rest of his rebuttal, so I'll get straight to it.The argument my opponent intends to make is that Animals are to be afforded some protections in some cases. That is a very different statement from Animals are entitled to protective rights. As I stated in my rebuttal, Protective Rights for Animals can be likened to Inalienable rights or Natural rights. Human rights or God-Given Rights or Universal Rights could work just as well. Of course we agree that some laws protecting animals can help us, but my argument is that we only give them protection when it suits our purposes. The Right to something is more fundamental and absolute than "we will protect them in some select few cases where it is convenient for us." Then immediately after we go and kill millions for food.My opponent and I agree that some animals should sometimes be given certain protections. But my opponent fails to make the case that they are entitled to protective rights, which is the namesake and ultimately, the point of this debate.Defense of my case1. Social Contract Theory doesnt apply to animalsMy opponent doesnt directly attack this, but I believe this statement was meant to attack it. my partner feels that because the animals themselves have o lawmaking ability, there should be no laws for humans pertaining to their welfare and proper handling. I feel certain that I have demonstrated that this is beside the point: the laws pertain only to humans, these laws are properly implemented, and there are good reasons for the public to demand such laws.My point is that laws pertaining to animals should only exist when they are done for a benefit to us. My opponent's argument is entirely dependent on points made in his rebuttals 2,3,4,5,6. Apart from that, my opponent does not actually attack the merits of the Social Contract Theory as it applies here; That is, "If they do not meet the duties and obligations towards the group, they are not entitled to it's mutual benefits and protections."2. Athropocentrism is and should be the basis of all action.All of the arguments here can and are essentially the same arguments as in 2,3,4,5,6. Benefits to humans are a huge part of(if not the entirety of) the arguments made in this debate. The point is that animals having protective rights is not valuable in and of itself. More to the point, the well-being of animals is not important in and of itself. Protecting select animals in certain condidtions is good if and only if it helps humans.3. The slippery slope of animal welfareThis was and is the heart of my case. Nearly half of my last rebuttal was devoted to this single point as it deals with the issue of animal rights in all of its aspects. This makes it all-the-more disturbing that the issue was not even mentioned anywhere in my opponent's last rebuttal. The issue of rights is a fairly absolute one, and we cannot enter on the moral high ground of animal rights while simultaneously killing billions of animals for food and billions more claiming they are pests.Im not going to take up voters time(mainly because I dont have the character space), so I will simply refer them to my previous rebuttal, after the bolded Conclusion.People are empathetic to animals. It is only natural to most of us that we do not want to see them in pain. When we see a beaten and abused puppy on television to the sound of a Sara McLauchan's In the Arms of an Angel, it makes us want to do something about it, and to prevent it. But consider animals that don't get on television. How much does a cow suffer in a feedlot for years before it's slaughter? And the majority of people still eat meat.How much does a rat suffer, barely getting by on scraps before its death? The majority of people would still call an exterminator.If we are not ready to make the leap, then do not pretend to take the moral high ground. Rats, Feral Hogs, and a thousand over invasive species are ready to take our place if we don't maintain our place at the top. And if you take the leap for animal rights, know that while humans are very high on the evolutionary chain...We just have that much more to fall.I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate! I look forward to your final rebuttal/conclusion. And I look forward to voters opinions on this topic.