April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

Summary of my arguments: C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights Con claims “that the bestowing of rights isn’t based on things like being able to feel or communicate, but rather on an ability to grasp ethical premises. Since animals are incapable of doing that, they are unworthy of rights. ” This contention misses the mark as I have already addressed this stating in my initial argument that Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. This includes infants and the mentally handicapped who may not have the ability to grasp ethical premises. Thus we see that even people unable to grasp ethical premises are still worthy of rights. This entirely disconnecting the concept of rights from the ability to grasp ethics. This was con’s only rebuttal to this argument and as it has been found lacking this argument stands. C2: Needless Suffering Con claims “To begin with, my opponent never makes any attempt to define what “needless” is. How exactly can we define what needless is? If I need to put animals through the cruelest and most horrible slaughterhouses in order to ensure the continued survival of the human race, would the suffering of the animals really be needless? Or would there be a need for their suffering? ” To accept con’s rebuttal here is to accept that any kind of animal suffering is morally justifiable. His hypothetical is a very specific example, how about people who abuse their pets for enjoyment, surely my opponent would not endorse such an action as moral. Why, because clearly it is a violation of the animals inherent right not to suffer needlessly. Needless is a simplistic word synonymous with unnecessary. Surely this semantical argument does not negate the obvious moral obligation to not harm animals needlessly. Clearly animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. The K: the only way I can lose this debate is if voters buy into the K. To those tempted to do so I refer you to round 1 rules. “typical rules. ” It is common courtesy as well as often listed among typical rules of a debate “No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) For example (. http://www.debate.org...) I confess I did not type this rule out in round one, though I did say typical rules which “no k’s of the topic” is a typical rule. Conclusion: It has become clear that both of my initial contentions stand. P1. Humans have rightsP2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etcP3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rightsC. Animals have rights P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental rightP2: Animals are capable of sufferingC2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U. S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed.