Persuasive Debate: Animal Rights

Framework I will be making arguments about Utilitarianism, endangered animals. Now, why am I arguing for no animal rights? Because this animals should not be in zoos debates are exact debates of animal rights, if animals have rights they should not be in zoos, if they do not have rights, they should be in cages. My framework will be centered around Utilitarianism. If it helps more than if it does not help, we do it. Not like the harm principle if it harms one person, we stop, but this is if it better for everyone than worse, we do it. Argument 1: UtilitarianismWhat is the definiton Utilitarianism? It is this. Utilitarianism: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of peopleThis basically means that if there are more good things than bad things, more benefits than diadvantages, they do it. Okay so, what are the good things of animals not having rights, and animals in zoosAdvantages1. We can have animal testing, because animal testing is very important for us humans to have cures, medical issues, much more. This research has saved many lives, even animal lives, also humans. [12], [13], [14], [15]2. Humans eat. We need protein. Also meat and seafood are good. If animals have rights, that means that we cannot eat meat and seafood, which is a major source of protein, because many people don't eat lots of beans because meat tastes better. [16]3. Many animals will become extinct. Making zoos will not only save animals, it will make people have a chance looking at them.4. There are so many things you can’t do if animals have rights, like you can’t fish, hunt, learn things in zoos, go to zoos, and it is hard to study from animals. [11]There are just so many advantages for animals not having rights, but if animals do have rights, that means that we can’t fish, hunt, eat meat or seafood, study for animals, go to zoos, and the endangered animals will all die. If we want animals like pandas still to be alive, the zoo is the only choice. Argument 2: Animals will become extinctWhy should this be in my side? Zoos are animal rights Con. Zoos help animals not get extinct. Therefore, having animal rights, makes no zoos, which makes animals into extinction. This is kinda like my fourth advantage, but it will be explained more. Yes, endangered animals will be extinct. Lets take an example of a siberian tiger. “The Siberian –or Amur- tiger is considered a critically endangered species with the primary threats to its’ survival in the wild being poaching and habitat loss from intensive logging and development. ”My opponent can say that we can stop. But sadly we can’t. Fur coats are not only pretty, they are also very warm, good for the winter. So the tiger will soon become extinct. But if there are zoos, then we can at least know there are some tigers that are safe, but bored in zoos. Even if there are no tigers left, there will be in zoos. These tigers will have babies also. This is the only way we can stop this. Yes, many people are trying to protect tigers from hunting, but there is two more problems. The first problem is habit loss. “Tigers are extremely territorial though so they will fight other animals and other tigers that invade their space. This problem has become more of an issue due to the natural environment for tigers being destroyed at an alarming rate, as a male tiger may have a territory of up to 60 to 100 square kilometers, while females up to 20 square kilometers, as this numbers change according with the habitat and subspecies. As a result they have to venture into new territories to be able to find adequate amounts of food. ” [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]This is a big space. However, tigers can’t use this much. People build homes, and there territory will be destroyed. This means that they fight with other tigers, but because the spaces are getting smaller, they have to fight, and one will probably die. [9], [10]The last problem is food. There is not a lot of food in Siberia or any foods that a tiger can eat, like deer or rabbits. The tigers will soon starve. Many tigers even died because of this. If they are in zoos though, they can have food easily. *Most important* Summary: Animal Right is bad. There are more good things when banning animal rights, then good things, as the definition says that animals are apart from humans and plants. If we allow animal rights, then that means that we can't eat any meat. We can't eat fish, beef, pork, etc. We can't make more medicine, which can make people die. If we want to make the world have more space, then we need to ban animal rights. If you want to continue to eat meat, go to zoos, see animals like tigers, then vote for Con, for banning animal rights. If you want to vote for Pro, then that means that you need to be a strict vegetarian, and not eat any meat, okay that endangered animals die, not making important medecine, and people can die, can't go to zoos, and we have to move houses if a tiger comes in our territory. Do you want this? Or do you want us to eat meat, and ban animal rights? I will let you choose, but I strongly believe that you should vote Con. Sources[1] . http://www.tigersincrisis.com...[2] . http://www.tigers.org.za...[3] . http://www.savetigersnow.org...[4] . http://bengaltigerconservation.blogspot.fr...[5] . http://www.speciesconservation.org...[6] . http://www.tigersincrisis.com...[7] . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] . http://www.tigers-world.com...[9] . http://www.lions.org...[10] . http://bigcatrescue.org...[11] . http://www.wisebread.com...[12] . http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[13] . http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[14] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[15] . http://www.listland.com...[16] . http://www.webmd.com...If