Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

I would like to introduce a framwork into this debate so before I begin on my rebuttals I will do that. Framework I have looked at some of my opponent's previous debates on similar topics and I have noticed that they have used egoism as a framework so I will like to counter this framework by showing how animal rights is necessary for human egoism. Animal rights is beneficial for human beings. Without proper treatment and care that animal rights promotes animals will ultimately become extinct. The extinction of any species is ultimately damaging to the human race. It would have devestating effects if multiple animals didn't receive animal rights and ended up extinct. Here are some examples to back up this theory: Termites are detritivores and decomposers, meaning they consume decomposing plant matter and play vital roles in recycling ecosystem energy, as well as in balancing biogeochemical cycles. Unlike other detritivores, the termite gut is unique in that it contains microorganisms that break down cellulose (building blocks for plants), which is indigestible without this symbiotic relationship. Think about it … what would we do without termites to clean up all the decomposing material? We might drown is cellulose-based litter, like autumn leaves and tree branches! Contamination Control Frogs act as bio-indicators, which means they indicate the health of their ecosystems. How? Frog skin is very porous and permeable, allowing substances present in the environment to be absorbed within their fatty tissues. Since these amphibians have the ability to live terrestrially and aquatically, they can indicate contamination dilemmas for both habitats. Since frogs will most often be the first animals to react to biological hazards, they are helpful for warning humans to take action. Cycle of Life Though not as effective as bats, frogs do help in insect control. They are also a food source to many carnivorous species and are needed for maintaining balanced ecosystems.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------== REBUTTALS == So, to begin with I do feel like I am just refuting quotes provided by my opponent and I didn't feel like there is much argument going on here but nevertheless, I will still attempt to refute my opponent's argument.RebuttalsYes, I linked my argument in with morals but I am not a believer in God and do not find this argument to be relevant to this debate. This debate could end up as a God debate however I am not prepared to go into that much detail and I do not want to go off topic so I will respond. " God is dead. "This is irrelevant to the debate and I do not believe in God. Since we clearly cannot agree with this point this argument is invalid and should not be considered in this debate. My opponent continues his argument with a long quote regarding God being dead and nonexistent but I do not find this point to e relevant to the debate since we are not arguing about whether God agrees with the point or whether God is alive or dead. The affirmative will brush off the death of God as irrelevant. Correct. Even without the firm guidelines of Christianity, we still have obvious ethical maxims to hang our hats on. This is also correct and therefore I fail to understand why exactly my opponent has based the majority of their argument on God and religion. If they admit that they didn't need to base it off religion then why did they? God and religion is not the source of morality. Religion is frequently help up as a model of moral behaviour. Many holy books contain rules for how people must live in order to reach Heaven or some similar afterlife. Failure to follow those rules often means eternal banishment and punishment. A person who follows these rules and is “godly” is also presumed to be a moral, upright person, whereas atheists are frequently viewed with suspicion. After all, with no God to tell you how to behave, what’s to stop a person from doing whatever they like? A poll conducted by Canadian psychologists even placed atheists as more untrustworthy than rapists in the USA and Canada, showing that atheists are among the least trusted people even in North America. In reality, there’s no evidence that atheists as a group are any more untrustworthy or immoral than any other group. There are dishonest atheists just as there are dishonest Christians and Muslims, and there are atheists who are paragons of good behaviour just like any upstanding religious person. Religions do seem to incite violence. This does not always imply a direct causal relationship between religion and violence, yet, this is the opposite of what you’d expect if morality really did stem from God. Religious texts are generally ancient, and they reflect the values of the times when they were written. Over time, our views of what is acceptable shift as our cultures progress, which makes many things found in the Bible or Quran seem outdated and highly problematic. Consider, for example, the issue of slavery. Although there are some people who still believe that slavery is moral, the vast majority of religious people are unlikely to admit support for the ownership of another person. Nevertheless, the Bible has many references to slavery, carefully detailing the rules for proper slave ownership.The affirmative’s moralizing results in an inner-war against the self that outweighs all violence. Please expand on this idea. How does my moralizing argument result in an inner war against the self. A assume that you are saying that give animals rights will cause people to create conflict within their own heads. Even if it did, which I see no evidence for, how is inner war worse than terrorism, murder and rape? I will not expand on this point until my opponent answers this question because without this answered I will be unable to proceed with this argument. " And, this K is especially effective against my opponent's case ... " I do not understand why my opponent feels like they can use quotations to refute my case. I understand that morality is not specifically defined but that does not mean that right and wrong are the same thing. Is killing moral in your eyes? There is a universal morality that is followed by the majority and this is what we will be defining morality as. Since your argument related to Christianity I think that it is acceptable for me to use the 10 commandments as a rebuttal to this argument. We will use the 10 commandments as a base for morality. The 10 commandments teaches us basic morality, we will exclude commandments such as keeping the Sabbath holy since they have no relevance to this rebuttal or to this debate. and only creates worse symptoms for animals. I cannot refute this argument until they explain what they mean by this. Without any argument to go with this, this is merely a bare assertion. Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...http://www.onegreenplanet.org...