Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.

Thanks to pro for his opening case. I'll give my case first then refute his. I accept my opponent's value of Justice. He defines it as "giving each their due", but I never saw this definition in any of the dictionaries I looked at, so I'd like to know where this is coming from. Until then, I offer the definition of "the administration of what is just or fair" which is the definition most commonly used.We need to figure out what it means to be "just or fair". I defend Utilitarianism, which states that actions are just when they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is the correct interpretation of justice for two reasons:1. Utilitarianism is objective; there is a definite right or wrong answer as to whether or not something produces a net benefit. 2. Utilitarianism, by definition, maximizes happiness for as many people as possible. This is a good thing because all humans are striving for happiness in life, ad Utility helps us do this.Contention 1: Not recognizing animal rights produces a Utilitarian benefitA. Animal experimentationResearchers trying to treat and prevent diseases have depended on animal testing for decades. According to the Foundation of Biomedical Research, "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century (1)." Animal experimentation requires that we don't recognize animal rights. Test subjects are often locked in cages, injected with various liquids, and exposed to certain substances, which would be unethical if we did consider animals as having a right to life or freedom. Thus, we cannot afford to respect animal rights because it would prohibit animal experimentation, which is bad because testing is necessary to developing cures for disease.In fact, animal research contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine (2). Its also led to the development of anaesthetics, insulin, and transplants, and developed vaccines for polio, hepatitis, and smallpox. So right off the bat, animal testing has literally saved millions of lives and will continue to do so.The Department of Health and Human services also confirms that animal experimentation has increased our average lifespan by 23.5 years (3). Its also key to cancer research and AIDS treatment. In fact, Americans for Medical Progress states that "You can't be for AIDS research AND animal rights." (4) Therefore, a just society does not recognize animal rights because doing so would destroy any chance of developing vaccines or cures for serious medical conditions.B. FoodIn areas such as Alaska, Northern Africa, or any other place with extreme conditions, plants do not have sufficient sunlight or water to grow. This makes vegetarianism impossible in several areas around the world. In these places, animals must be killed and eaten for food in order for the human population to survive. Not doing so condemns, literally, millions of people to starvation, which is obviously unethical. Conclusion: Animal testing and food consumption literally saves millions of lives, of both humans and animals. But doing so requires the non-recognition of animal rights, because to test cures and vaccines we must take away the animal's freedom and/or life. This is acceptable because there is a greater Utilitarian benefit; more animals will end up being saved because of our medical advancements, and human populations in the desert and tundra will be able to survive by eating meat. Pro case: I have two general refutations against my opponent's arguments: First, my opponent's case is incompatible with Utilitarianism. His arguments are generally about the animal's ability to suffer, moral considerability, and moral reciprocity. These arguments are deontological in nature rather than Utilitarian. So if the judges at any point accept Utilitarianism as the correct way to weigh the round, his entire case would fall because it does not match the correct framework.Second, my opponent does not meet the BoP. The resolution asks Pro to defend animal rights, which means he must defend at least 2 rights in order to fulfill the grammatical burden of the resolution. However, the only right Pro has even mentioned is the right to freedom from suffering, and nothing else. Thus, he does not meet the burden of proof because he only defends one animal right whereas the resolution calls for multiple.JusticePro hasn't actually explained what constitutes a just action. This is problematic because the resolution asks us to evaluate what a just society would do. Since he has no weighing standard of Justice, you have to accept my interpretation, which is that a just society acts to maximize the happiness of its people. I agree with my opponent that we must not violate rights of those who possess them. I also accept his definition of Rights. C1:In this debate, Pro needs to answer the question "Why should animals have rights?". Most of his case doesn't do this. His Contention 1 consists mostly of pre-emptive arguments rather than positive ones, and his contention 2 talks about what would happen IF animals had rights. Lets look at Contention 1. Pro starts by saying that "To accept that animals have rights only requires that one accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals." Thats fine.In Pro's next paragraph, he says that animal rights only exist in human to animal interaction. Ok.Then he says that humans having the ability to abuse animals doesn't mean that its justified. Ok.Animals and painFinally, Pro makes a positive argument for the resolution, by saying animals should have the right to freedom from suffering because they can feel pain. I agree that most animals experience similar physical stimulations of suffering that humans do. However, what makes pain truly painful is the emotional response. The International Association for the Study of Pain writes that "The emotional component of pain is considered its important aspect, not the activation of pain sensors in the body."(5) We know emotions play a key role in pain sensations because of how we react to different situations. In the dentist office, the pain of a needle going into a gum doesn't hurt a lot because we are able to reason it away, making our emotions not play a role. But if we were forced onto a table against our will, an had our teeth drilled into, it would hurt quite a lot because we are now emotionally involved. So emotions are a prerequisite to the feeling of true suffering. This is where the animal's cognitive capacity comes in. In The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, three professors write several times that a high cognitive ability is necessary for the feeling of emotion (6), which in turn is necessary for the feeling of true suffering. Most animals do not have a high cognitive capacity like humans do, so this would prove that animals are unable to feel pain on the human level because they do not have emotions on the human level. Thus, this is not a reason to recognize animal rights. Contention 2: This contention just explains that if there are things that shouldn't be done to animals, then they have a right from it. This is fine, but I've already argued that any "bad thing" we can do to animals is morally neutral because they don't have emotions at the level humans do. Conclusion:Pro is missing a lot of things from his case to affirm. For one, he doesn't define what a just action is, and only defends one animal right. Plus, he hasn't justified his deontological approach to the topic whereas I have justified my Utilitarian one. Remember that if voters accept Utilitarianism, it would basically be an auto-win because thats what my case is about. For these reasons, as well as the fact that not recognizing animal rights saves millions, I urge a Con vote.Good luck to my opponent in his next round. 1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...4. http://bitURL.net...5. http://bitURL.net...6. http://bitURL.net...