Elephants should have certain inalienable rights.

C1. Intellectual similaritiesPro just doesn't offer any links between having a smaller brain at birth than in adulthood with providing inalienable rights. He just says that they are similar thus they should have rights. But, I can say this: a rock has an astounding 0% new-born brain mass as an adult rock, therefore it logically follows that they should have inalienable rights! ...Wait, something doesn't add up; to jump from "intellectually alike" (which I agree completely) to they must be given inalienable rights is a falsehood. This contention just doesn't hold up because it makes no sense.C2. SentiencePro falls into the same trap as in C1 - they provide no A->B->rights link; they have sentience->suffering->inalienable rights???? How exactly is this a valid mode of thought ... a robot can be coded to see itself in a mirror, but it shouldn't have inalienable rights - for it lacks the 'human-ness' that rights are constructed about.Now, onto my case. O1. Rights are only inalienable in a protective state that will have a means for protection ... inalienability doesn't mean anything if there is no state to ensure that there is inalienability.My case will hinge on the idea that if you have a State to protect rights then you are the main cause of all problems in the world ... the framework that the Aff is arguing for necessarily requires the existence of a rights-protecting State - if they advocate against the existence of such a State then they concede the debate.C1. The State undermines communal responses and will lead to human extinction.Murray Bookchin, 1990, argues: That "clarity," today, is gone. It has been replaced by ambiguity. The certainty that technology and science would improve the human condition is mocked by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, by massive hunger in the Third World, and by poverty in the First World. The fervent belief that liberty would triumph over tyranny is belied by the growing centralization of states everywhere and by the disempowerment of people by bureaucracies, police forces, and sophisticated surveillance techniques--in our "democracies" no less than in visibly authoritarian countries. The hope that we would form "one world," a vast community of disparate ethnic groups that would share their resources to improve life everywhere, has been shattered by a rising tide of nationalism, racism, and an unfeeling parochialism that fosters indifference to the plight of millions. We believe that our values are worse than those held by people of only two or three generations ago. The present generation seems more self-centred, privatized, and mean-spirited by comparison with earlier ones. It lacks the support systems provided by the extended family, community, and a commitment to mutual aid. The encounter of the individual with society seems to occur through cold bureaucratic agencies rather than warm, caring people. This lack of social identity and meaning is all the more stark in the face of the mounting problems that confront us. War is a chronic condition of our time; economic uncertainty, an all-pervasive presence; human solidarity, a vaporous myth. Not least of the problems we encounter are nightmares of an ecological apocalypse--a catastrophic breakdown of the systems that maintain the stability of the planet. We live under the constant threat that the world of life will be irrevocably undermined by a society gone mad in its need to grow--replacing the organic by the inorganic, soil by concrete, forest by barren earth, and the diversity of life-forms by simplified ecosystems; in short, a turning back of the evolutionary clock to an earlier, more inorganic, mineralized world that was incapable of supporting complex life-forms of any kind, including the human species. C2. Genocide and war can only operate under the State.Louis Rene Beres, 1994: The State requires its members to be serviceable instruments, suppressing every glimmer of creativity and imagination in the interest of a plastic mediocrity. Even political liberty within particular States does nothing to encourage opposition to war or to genocide in other States. Since "patriotic self-sacrifice" is demanded even of "free" peoples, the expectations of inter-State competition may include war and the mass killing of other peoples. In the final analysis, war and genocide are made possible by the surrender of Self to the State. Thus the affirmation's framework is inherently flawed; any change that they wish to bring is in a system that is entirely bad, thus any changes they make are bad unless they address the system itself - the State.Don't let the aff get away with saying that inalienable rights are good - because, truly, they are only possible in the worst invention in human history. We need to take a step back and dissolve the state before we can even talk about the humanity of elephants.