Non-human animals should have rights.

***I could just take the semantics route, and concede that the mentally disabled/brain-damaged should not have rights and win... but, this debate deserves better than that. ========== REBUTTALS - 1 ========== Contention 1: "Individual capabilities aren't relevant to granting rights." My opponent has made the above statement which would require rights for everything. Living, non-living, inanimate, make-believe, and fictional would all be afforded rights according to my opponent. My opponent has not put forth another criterion that is better than individual capabilities, so my point stands. --- Contention 2: "The fact that something is a member of a certain species is not a valid criterion for granting it rights. People that are permanently brain-dead are also members of our species and have all the biological functions of a human apart from an active brain. Likewise, three-day-old blastocysts are also genetically members of the species homo sapiens and thus, by my opponent's own logic, should be granted rights." * My opponent claims blastocysts are gentically members of the species homo sapiens. This is false. [1] +My opponent claims that my logic for granting brain-dead persons is faulty. However, the test for moral judgment is not a test to be administered to humans one by one, but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general. [2] By granting rights based on individual abilities rather than species, my opponent's logic would give smart, white Europeans more rights than dumb, black, Africans. It would give educated Doctors more rights than high school drop-outs. And so on and so on. --- Contention 3: "Even if your bigoted and erroneous views about animals were correct, which they aren't, I could make the exact same argument about people that are severely mentally retarded." See: Contention 2 Rebuttal. --- Contention 4: "This argument is no more valid when applied to animals then it would be if it were applied to a single human living in solitude in some remote part of the world." My opponent's example of "a single human living in solitude in some remote part of the world" is obviously a theoretical, a far-fetched theoretical at that. My point stands. ========= REBUTTAL - 2 ========= Contention 1: "Higher primates are persons and thus deserve rights." Higher primates are not considered homo sapiens. My opponent proposed a definition and reasoning that is in no way scientific and would never hold up in any academic community. Obviously we are similar, but not the same, as my opponent claims. [3] [4] [5] [6] ========= CONCLUSION ========= 1) I have shown that animals are not capable of entering into a social contract that is needed for rights. 2) My opponent objected that the mentally retarded are not able to enter into social contracts. I countered that judging should be based on speciesism [7], and I mentioned the negative affects of my opponent's logic. 3) The resolution has been negated. Quick Summary: >Animals are not members of society. They are not able to be enter a social contract where they have moral responsibilities, like humans. Animals are neither moral or immoral, they are amoral. Animals do not respect human rights, so humans should not respect animal rights. Animals are amoral, instinctual, irrational beings much likes robots. ---------------My opponent's only counter to this was with regards to the mentally disabled, which I refuted. ====== SOURCES ====== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://spot.colorado.edu... [3] http://anthro.palomar.edu... [4] http://users.rcn.com... [5] http://www.time.com... [6] http://www.howcomyoucom.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... === I thank my opponent for the debate, it wass fun. Obviously do not bring up new contentions in Round 3 as it is the final round. Voters- please leave RFDs, I hope you enjoyed the debate as well.