This house believe that animals have rights

Thank you to Balacafa for posting his/her arguments. When considering the motion today, it is clear that the opposition has won this debate. To further put forth this belief, I will now be refuting some of the claims that the proposition has put forth. First of all, he has refuted my definition of animal. This is technically a violation of the terms set by the instigator, which said "the second round will only be for arguments. No rebuttals will be allowed until the third round". The definition is a mistranslation. Apparently, my computer "bugged up" and some of my progress was lost. I had to rewrite the forward part of my arguments, and I believe I missed the mistakes in the definitions. The original definition was one from a different debate. The definition was supposed to be "a living organism that feeds on organic matter, able to respond to stimuli, other than humans". Thus, I believe that the proposition will have no room to refute this definition. Furthermore, since he has not produced any counter definitions, it means that he should accept mine. The most obvious problem facing in his claims is his use of quotes. He has merely listed some quotes that supposedly "aren't by random people - these are by philosophers, scientists and politics. Including Abraham Lincoln". However, he has not produced any names, and unless he expects the voters and opposition to go to one of his sources and track each quote individually, we have to assume that these quotes have no place within this debate. His question of whether "can animals suffer" is unproven. He has put forth no definition for suffering and because of this, we have no boundaries for which his claims lie. I can, for example, say "if animals don't get the exact food they want, they suffer for this". According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, suffer means "experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant)". Thus, technically a bad memory could be a form of suffering. Furthermore, his entire claim that all animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do, claiming that "they feel plan, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love". This is in fact not any emotions, but rather the survival instinct. These animals want to protect their own genes in order to carry on their own species. This is the fundamental aim for an animal. Thus, the traits that look like love and morality are simply chemical outputs that tell the animal that they must protect their own species. Furthermore, animals do not have a developed limbic system, which controls emotions in humans. Paul Kluver and Heinrich Bucy, researchers trying to find if animals had emotions, performed temporal lobectomies on monkeys. His conclusion was that their limbic system controlled fight or flight responses, which is largely involuntary. Thus, we can conclude that animals only feel a very basic form of emotions. The opposition, nor have most advocates against animal rights ever claimed that "all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use". Unless the proposition can find direct evidence that the majority of people against human rights believe in this statement, then we have to assume his entire paragraph useless. Furthermore, the proposition claims that it's only our prejudice that allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have ourselves. Firstly, his arguments for dogs versus pigs is unfounded due to the fact that some culture do eat dogs. Most Asian countries in fact eat both kinds. Furthermore, he has said that two different species have the same capacity to feel pain. This is incorrect, as I have already proved to you that these so-called emotions are in fact a form of the survival instinct. Lastly, his quote regarding "Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves; they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends" puts too much pressure on the human race. For one point, it is scientifically proven that we must have meat in order to survive healthily. We cannot be forced to become vegetarians just for the sake of other species who cannot think rationally nor morally. His quote means that we have to let all animals live freely, which is something that the human race cannot do. Now, I shall move on to further explain my own arguments, though I cannot do it a lot due to the fact I have hit my character limit. 1) Humans have no obligation towards animals Using my definition of animals as "a living organism that feeds on organic matter, able to respond rapidly to stimuli, other than humans" (Source: New Oxford American Dictionary). This means that, technically, a plant or mouse can be an animal. Does this mean that these two species have rights? The answer is undoubtedly no. It's impossible to consider rights such as "right to life" to these types of species. We cannot give these rights to these animals, due to the fact that they cannot think any rational thoughts nor do any rational actions. Instead, they merely act out of the survival instinct. 2) Humans have the right to dominate over other animals We have this right because it is given to us by nature. Just because a lion dominates an antelope doesn't mean it treats it with rationality. This given right means that we are able to use it, and it is nature given. Of course, we should not abuse this right, yet we have this right in order to get a consistent food supply and in order to ensure our species's health and safety. The negative's rebuttals against the proposition's claims breaks down them completely. Furthermore, he has technically broken the terms to which he agreed to, which stated he was not allowed to rebut in the second round, yet he has done so. Lastly, the negative's arguments make the most rational sense, using evidence gathered from scientific and philosophical sources. Considering these facts, it is obvious that the opposition has won this debate. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nyu.edu... http://www.wellcome.ac.uk...