Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Before I begin discussing the debate, I just want to highlight a central, unrefuted argument from my last speech. My opponent continuously highlights this idea of improving our lives by improving the lives of animals. The problem is that this is not done by considering animal rights: it is done in order to improve human rights. As such, this argument is completely irresolutional and should not be considered. In addition, it is entirely nonunique, since the negative also achieves this end because it respects human, and not animal, rights. This argument was entirely dropped in my opponent's last speech, so please do not let her address it in the next few rounds.Attacks on Aff Case Almost all of the attacks on the affirmative case were dropped, so it is pretty unfair for me to have to go back and rehash them when my opponent chose to ignore them. As such, I will extend all of the dropped arguments here and and address the few ideas that my opponent did respond to.Her central response was that we can improve society by protecting animal rights. Keep in mind that as I stated above, she is not really considering the rights of animals when she says this. Rather, she is acknowledging that some harm to humans is being done and that these harms can be corrected by reducing pollution, improving conditions in factory farms, etc. As such, she is not showing you why Justice requires recognition of animal rights because all of the ends she advocates are achieved through a respect for human rights. I can almost guarantee that she will argue that this is the reason that we have to consider animal rights, so let me spike the argument here: if these problems did not affect humans, she would not be considering them. For example, if we discovered that sacrificing chickens to a rain god brought propserity to the people, then she would advocate doing so because human rights would be protected. Her ultimate goal is protecting human rights, and not animal rights, so if the status quo were to change in such a fashion that animal rights no longer need be protected, she would not protect them according to the arguments that she made in her last two speeches. She is, in reality, negating, and not affirming, this resolution.She responds to my contradiction claim by contending that we can kill animals if this benefits society by solving hunger problems. Fine. I will concede that she is not contradicting herself, but will turn her logic against her because this demonstrates the point that I was making above, namely that she is promoting human rights and their consideration and not the consideration of animal rights. If we claim that taking innocent life is unjust, as she implicitly notes, then she would have to argue for vegetarianism, which she is refusing to do. So, you can vote off the fact that her case is irresolutional.Her "counter" to my Mill argument is not really a counter: Mill talks about improving human society through a philosophy that was created to benefit humans. It is not applicable to animals in any fashion; she is taking his ideas out of context. Keep in mind that she drops the rest of my attacks on her case, including the harms to the economy through reduced trade, the irresolutionatlity of her case, the fact that economic good does not equate to justice, the fact that her second contention was not even backed up with a proper quote and is thus an unwarranted assertion, etc. Extend all of those here; they mitigate her entire case and are a reason you vote negative. Please do not let her attack them in her next speeches because she dropped them and thus cannot fairly use them. Also, she cannot just claim that she wants to debate about the United States. That was not part of the original resolution, and it is unfair for her to redefine the debate after it has already started. Negative CaseThe crux of the negative case is twofold. First, we grant rights based on agreement to the social contract, as noted by Rawls. Second, animals lack the rationality to actually join the social contract, as noted by Feinberg. The entire negative case was dropped by my opponent; she never even attempted to address this. So, extend the negative case; these arguments link back to the fair distribution of rights and thus to Justice. She dropped this and thus cannot attempt to attack it in later speeches.Thus I strongly urge a negation of today's resolution.