This house believe that animals have rights

Thank you to Balacafa for posting his rebuttals, and thanks to the voters for taking their time to read through this debate to make a decision, which would hopefully be in the opposition's favor. Before I move on, I must answer some of the proposition's rebuttals to my arguments: Firstly, the proposition claimed that his refute of the opposition's definition is not a rebuttal. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, a rebuttal is "a refutation or contradiction". Thus, since he has made a contradiction, this means that the instigator (opposition) has the power and authority to coerce the challenger (proposition) to accepting so. The proposition must agree that he/she has lost this debate due to the fact that he/she has violated the terms to which it has agreed to. However, the opposition will carry on to further explain why the proposition has lost. Secondly, the proposition has claimed that since I have used Wikipedia, some of my arguments may be incorrect. The reason that I have used Wikipedia was to find the experiment done by the researchers I have listed in the previous round. The source that it's supposed to be is a research paper that I could not find on the web. Thus, I had to list Wikipedia as a source in order to back up my arguments. Thus, let it be made clear that all of my arguments are backed up, just with Wikipedia as a medium between one of my arguments and the actual source. Third, the proposition has also claimed that animals can understand cause and effect, an example being that a dog or cat may come onto your lap. The reason, he claims, is that they are seeking comfort and warmth. This means that this point goes into the opposition's favor due to the fact that this shows the survival instinct to stay warm. Furthermore, common household pets display "acts of kindness" not out of morality, but rather out of the fact that they have accepted you as the pack leader. Dogs are naturally supposed to be in packs, thus we have become their alpha. Thus, his rebuttal falls apart, and instead goes into the opposition's favor. Furthermore, he says that "We have a base desire to look, nurture and respect". The opposition agrees with this, and this also goes into the negative's favor due to the fact that this base desire is meant to protect our own kin. Of course, just because animals don't have rights does not mean that we cannot nurture them. What the opposition is advocating for is that these animals should not get rights that would eventually become useless, as outlined in the opposition's arguments. Forth, the proposition has said that my explanation on the animal brain was unnecessary. On the contrary, the proposition is denying the scientific evidence that I have put forth, merely pushing it aside by saying it's useless. The point that I was trying to prove is self-evident; animals do not have the ability to think morally nor rationally, as proved by science. Fifth, the proposition claims that if the opposition believes that beings cannot think morally or rationally, then shouldn't babies nor people with profound disabilities not get rights. Firstly, babies do not have any rights, thus his point falls apart. Secondly, the proposition has not outlined what it means to have a disability. Maybe, it involves movement, in which the people still have rights for they can think rationally and morally. Assuming that the proposition means a mental incapacity to think rationally, then this is an entirely different matter. We are debating about animal rights, not disability rights. As the opposition has given the definition "a living organism that feeds on organic matter and is able to respond to stimuli, other than humans" and that the proposition has not challenged this definition, we must stay within the parameters of the debate. His paragraph regarding my paragraph on morality also falls outside of the debate, talking about other human rights, rather than the animal rights with which we are debating today. Sixth, the proposition has claimed that we are no different from animals due to the fact that "nature put us at the top of the good chains so we would kill animals". First, again the proposition has failed to go under the parameters of the debate. Since he has not rebutted against my definition, it is clear that we are separate from animals. Secondly, the proposition has once again failed to give rights that we should give to animals. For example, should we give animals the right to life, which means that this would force us to become vegetarians? Furthermore, killing animals because we are on the top of the food chain does not make us animals. Nature has given us this right, and other animals also use this right. This is simply a similarity, but nothing more than a similarity between humans and animals. Finally, the proposition has claimed that animals would not be a major concern that would interfere with larger issues. Firstly, the proposition has failed to explain why it would not interfere. For example, let's look at the United States' Congress. Should it be focusing on the increasing threat of ISIS or discussing about whether we should give chickens the right to life? Naturally, the answer should be the former. Government should not be focusing their efforts to give animals rights, but rather focus to eliminate more pressing threats. Now, I shall explain why the opposition deserves to win today's debate: First, the proposition has failed to rebut against the opposition rebuttals against his/her arguments. This means that either the proposition agrees with my proposals, which means that the opposition has won this debate automatically, or that he is waiting to post these rebuttals in the final round, where the opposition would not be able to explain further, thus removing the possibility of any threat to his/her arguments. Secondly, I have the factual high ground due to the fact that I have made the most rational arguments, backed up by scientific research and philosophical opinions whereas the proposition has used less reliable sources than the proposition has done. Third, the opposition has responded to each rebuttal made by the proposition which means that it's claims have fallen apart. Due to the fact that the opposition has completely broken through the proposition's arguments, the opposition has clearly won today's debate.