Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

[ REBUTTAL ]Con doesn't have any positive arguments or offense. The rules in Rd. 1 state that the burdens of persuasion are equal, which means both sides -- myself and Con -- have an obligation to present positive argument to affirm or negate the resolution. Even if your judging paradigm doesn't support the Rd. 1 rules (which it should, since the debaters define the terms), the topic is a normative one (i.e. one that is about desirability or obligation). The purpose of debate is persuasion, which means both sides are required to have even ground. Even if your judging paradigm disagrees with this and involves upholding the "status quo," note that the status quo recognizes animal rights in nearly every country [10]. As such, Con fails to fulfill their burden of persuasion. [ MY CASE ]I will now proceed to defend my case. "Global warming isn't real, so ecosystem collapse doesn't count."Global warming exists and poses a significant threat. Basic physics suggests that carbon dioxide traps heat. In this case, solar radiation is trapped within the Earth's atmosphere because of carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide has been the dominant forcing in the Cenozoic Era [11]. Rises in CO2 concentrations correspond directly to temperature rise [11]. Climatologist J.D. Annan -- with a study using the Bayesian statistical approach, the dominant method in the scientific literature -- concluded that, per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the global mean temperature rises by 3 degrees Celsius [12]. 97% of scientists believe that global warming is primarily human-caused, and not one study in all of the scientific literature suggests that global warming doesn't exist at all [13]. If we continue emitting greenhouse gases at this rate, Hansen, et al. explain that climate change "would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans." [14] Recognizing the rights of endangered animals prevents ecosystem collapse, thus mitigating the threat of climate change. Con's first source predicts a "pause" in climate change and sites HadCRUT3. But HadCRUT4 data -- which is more contemporary -- suggests an upwards trend that has significantly accelerated since 1975 [15]. Con's second source doesn't prove his point."Pro must explain the economic benefits of the Endangered Species Act."Alright, I'll proceed to doing that. Protecting wolves in the United States is critical to maintaining tourist revenue. Researcher John Duffield of the University of Montana found that, between 2004 and 2006, 150,000 people from all over the world visited Yellowstone National Park just for the wolves [16]. Tourism brings with it economic revenue. Wyoming, Idaho and Montana get $35.5 million each year because of "wolf tourism." [16] If wolves had no protection whatsoever and people started poaching them till they were extinct, this revenue would be lost. The same with endangered species such as tigers. Thus, I have defended my contention that recognition of animal rights brings benefit to society as a whole, and just societies require benefit to their people. Con contends that animals harm humans by their presence in urban areas. He has multiple examples to prove this point. But Con is employing circular reasoning here, since I showed that if there's a reason to change the conditions of animals experiencing suffering and no reason not to, then the right against suffering exists. In most of Con's cases, the "harm" felt by humans is easily outweighed by the harm experienced by the animal. I'll address this via the quote-rebuttal method, which I usually don't use but is the only method which would be effective in today's debate. "Carnivores such as lions, tigers etc. stop us from exploring jungles."First, this is a bare assertion; insofar as necessary precautions are taken, "exploring jungles" is still possible. Second, Con doesn't explain how preventing us from exploring jungles is sufficient warrant to abuse lions and tigers. Abuse actually creates immense pain, but "exploring jungles" has little benefit. Con is employing circular reasoning since he's assuming human rights are more important than animal rights. "Herbivores eat up lot of plants and reduce greenery and crop production, which justifies beating them up."First, Con doesn't explain how this reduces "crop production," because farms are usually secure from herbivores eating the crop. Second, Con doesn't explain how this "reduces greenery," because even humans eat plants: would you say that "reduces" greenery? Humans reduce greenery. The rate of herbivorous plant consumption, on the other hand, is not much higher than the rate of plant growth. Third, Con doesn't explain how this "justifies beating them up." Con then brings up arguments from safety. If a person's safety is compromised in an individual situation, they are justified in self-defense. That isn't an instance of "needless suffering." Con then says animals "make unwanted noises," which is a hilarious justification for abuse. None of Con's responses to the argument from the right against needless abuse is compelling, because Con doesn't address my justifications (pain is undesirable and needless pain in animals should be avoided), instead bringing up examples either where (1) there is actual need, or (2) animal abuse is unjust by my own argument. "If you believe justice should be applied to animals, then human laws should be applied to animals."This is a bare assertion. Most human rights (e.g. the right to property) were built on the assumption of rational faculty. But Con doesn't explain how this is the case for, as an example, the right against needless abuse. For example, if a person who is severely mentally enfeebled to the point where they are intellectually equivalent to a non-human animal, them stealing isn't going to be punished, nor their "trespassing property." They aren't morally culpable. But they are still awarded rights. The same applies to animals. Con doesn't explain how rationality is sufficient reason to deny rights. Humans are just another species of animal. If "rationality" is sufficient, why isn't "non-opposable thumbs" a unique characteristic for denying rights? [ CONCLUSION ]Con mostly misrepresents my position in this debate. I'm arguing that some amount of animal welfare, in some form, should exist. I've proven that recognizing animal rights benefits humans, that animals ought to be subject to moral consideration, and that "rationality," the "ability to communicate," and "the ability to follow a religion" are entirely arbitrary characteristics for denying rights. For those reasons, vote Pro. [10] https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.columbia.edu...[12] http://www.jamstec.go.jp...[13] http://climate.nasa.gov...[14] http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...[15] https://www.skepticalscience.com...[16] https://wolves.files.wordpress.com...