That society ought to recognize animal rights

We've been discussing whether there is a standard by which society's recognition of human rights is justified. I've been arguing that compassion is such a standard, and furthermore that the existance of human rights proves there must be such a standard, as humans cannot be justifiably distinguished from animals. My opponent argued that contracts are the only possible standard, and that they distinguish between humans and elements. I'm going to split his point into two like this, because I feel like he's going to whine at me (as he has done in the comments) unless I construe his case like it has some non-rebuttal material. I should point out, however, that in debating just because you SAY something is not rebuttal does not make that the case. ContractarianismMy opponent needed to prove why contractarianism is the only possible form of moral obligation. My opponent asserts time and time again that all my obligations are irrelevant, and that only his standard counts. When I point out other obligations, he keeps claiming that they're rights or "permissable actions", not obligations. At some point he actually needs to back up those claims with some logic, or perhaps some evidence, given my significant amount of counter-analysis in the previous round. The only thing he says is that we have no reason to do anything other than follow contracts, which is absurd because I've given several reasons already throughout my case. The premise of his whole argument therefore fails. My opponent accepts we owe a duty to the vulnerable in our society, although he also says they hold no duty to us (who my opponent confusingly calls "the state", even though contracts are by definition made between persons - "contracts" by the state are actually called "laws"). By his own logic this is therefore not a contract, because the consideration in the arrangement is not mutual. Otherwise we could form a contract we animals as vulnerable members of our society, just as we form a "contract" with babies. But if this isn't a contract, and we still afford them human rights, then contractarianism cannot be a sufficient standard to explain human rights, let alone animal ones. Therefore his argument fails logically. My opponent accepts that contracts are not the reason for rights but a means of recognising rights. He argues that rights must be accepted by a third party to be true. A much simpler means of recognising rights would simply be to not kill animals, for instance. You don't NEED to ask anything of the animal in return. If the rights exist without contracts and contracts cannot be used to recognise them, then I suppose the only logical conclusion is that we should recognise them without contracts - not that we should abandon something we can reason exists. By this logic we might as well argue there are no rights at all, only the enforcement of rights that don't exist. This is illogical because human rights do exist. Additionally, my opponent has asserted that contracts can create ethical obligations as opposed to legal ones. I'm going to deny that ethical contractarianism is even a thing, let alone one that we all have to follow and adhere to. Remember my argument that what we should do is a function of what we want to become. If ethically we want to become one thing, then we should be that thing, regardless of what my opponent's made-up system demands. Ethics is, after all, about justifying actions, not agreeing to them, so the whole conception of ethics as a contract makes no sense whatsoever. We are all the sameYou'll note that the largest paragraph of my argument is dedicated to dealing with the idea that animals cannot contract. I did in fact deal with every aspect of this argument and it's amazing my opponent thinks I dropped it. You'll recall that I argued contracts are not agreed to explicitly but implicitly - so if a contract can be made with a newborn infant to give them instant human rights (despite their inability to talk etc) then it can with animals too. You'll also note that I did not drop my opponent's other argument that no other system provides an obligation. Indeed I argued both that he has not proven contractarianism does create an obligation, nor has he proven that my alternative of rights based on responsibility and logic does not. I further extended this case by showing that contractarianism is premised on these, so if contractarianism provides an obligation, then my alternatives necessarily do too. You'll note that both of these claimed drops are simply attempts to ignore some of my best material, which interestingly enough was ACTUALLY dropped by my opponent. My opponent has also dropped my analysis that contracts have equal consideration with animals as with other humans. I'm not really sure why my opponent wanted to break up his case like this, both because it makes no sense and because he's provided no justifiable criteria for discriminating between humans and animals other than contractarianism - and on that, he's dropped all the directly relevant rebuttal points by claiming I've dropped them when I quite evidently hadn't. I suspect what's happened is that my opponent doesn't understand that I completely reorganised his jumbled case so that I could rebut it with reference to the arguments it addresses. For this reason I have done my opponent a service and answered his points more or less in sequence in this round. Human ResponsibilityMy opponent continues to maintain this is a case for permissability not obligation, without any reasons for that. He adds that it's an emotional appeal. As much as I am glad my argument is emotionally touching, it isn't supposed to be. I've given several logical reasons for why we have an obligation to do things we are responsible for, because I've argued we have an obligation to make the world what we consider to be a better place, which is an evolved part of who we are. In the same way as we are obliged to eat food or drink water, we are obliged to be compassionate - that includes not just compassion for humans, but compassion for animals as well. I made this point two rounds ago and my opponent has never engaged with it. In addition to that, I also argued that wants are tied to obligations - for instance, if you want a better world, you have to become part of a better world. Since a compassionate world is better than a self-interested one, we ought to be compassionate in our awarding of rights. Again, my opponent seems to refuse to admit that I made these arguments when he says it's purely emotional. The latter argument he briefly mentions when he says that it presumes moral obligations exist, but of course we already know that they do - this is why we have human rights. SummaryMy opponent has tried to turn this debate into something it isn't, by claiming a particular moral framework is the one and only correct one, and that using that framework discriminates between humans and animals in awarding rights. Not only is contractarianism not true just because my opponent said so, I've also shown that animals can contract (implicitly) and that they can be given consideration (just as an infant can). Furthermore, I've provided alternative standards that I've shown to be better - first, we should be rational in our discrimination between humans and animals. No morally relevant standards have been proven in this debate for why we should discriminate between them at all. Second, we should act responsibly. I'm absolutely serious in saying that this debate is about what you think you ought to do, as you are a member of society. Should you do as my opponent says, and live your life according to his ethical worldview that doesn't even stack up in opposing animal rights? Or should you be logical and compassionate. I hope I've convinced you as to what ethical view you ought to hold. The resolution is affirmed.