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

I'm going to go straight down the arguments as he made them. Utilitarianism:My opponent thinks that his conception of Justice (giving each their due) is compatible with Utilitarianism. I agree. However, my argument wasn't that Justice and Utility don't match. It was that Utility and my opponent's arguments don't match. This is because my opponent's case does not explain how recognizing animal rights benefits anybody, or how it produces a Utilitarian benefit. Rather, its more about the deontological implications of treating animals poorly because they can feel pain. This would normally be fine, but Pro has still not justified deontology as a sound ethical theory, which makes his arguments invalid because their premise is not proven. Justice:Pro agrees that Utilitarianism is a way to determine what is just. Though he asserts that "it is not the only way to achieve what is “just” in all circumstances. " Perhaps, but he has conceded my two justifications for Utility, so at the very least we're going to weigh this topic through it. Thus, in this debate, we look to which side is benefiting more people. Clearly this is the Con position, since I'm developing cures for disease and sickness. Animal testing/Food:My opponent seems to think animal testing is a reason to violate animal rights rather than say they shouldn't have them at all. However, in round 2 my opponent said that "No law, institution, or person is just if it or he violates or ignores or in some way encroaches upon the rights of others". He also said that "Where animals have the right to not be subjected to unnecessary harm, any violation of that right is unjust". These quotes say that if animals did have rights, any violation of them is unjustified. This means he cannot access the benefits of animal experimentation and food consumption because these would require the violation of the right to life or freedom. As such, animal research and animal rights are mutually exclusive. The alternative then is simply to say that we should not recognize animal rights in the first place. This enables us to save millions of people because it allows us to experiment on and occasionally kill animals to develop cures, with no ethical constraints restricting us. A just society would do this because it creates a Utilitarian benefit, which has been tacitly agreed to as the correct way to view the resolution. Also, its questionable as to what the point of animal rights are in the first place, if we can just lock them up and throw them in cages whenever we want. If my opponent thinks its okay to force monkeys and lab rats into laboratories and inject them with fluids, then he's not really upholding animal rights. Lets move on. Pro case:1. The pro case and UtilitarianismI think Pro misunderstood this argument. His rebuttal seems to be saying that he can support animal rights and support Utilitarianism. This doesn't answer my argument. The argument is that my opponent's case (individual arguments) don't match Utilitarianism, because none of his points attempt to produce any kind of net benefit through the recognition of animal rights. Remember, Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For his case to be compatible with this, he should argue that the recognition of animal rights leads to some sort of net benefit. Though none of his arguments do this. As previously stated, my opponent mostly talks about deontological reasons to give animals rights, which has not been justified. Thus, accepting Utilitarianism as the correct way to determine what is just means that none of my opponent's case applies. Animals and pain:Pro has straw manned this argument into thinking I said animals don't feel pain whatsoever. This is just wrong; I admitted that animals feel pain physically. The argument is that animals generally do not feel pain anywhere near the human level because they lack complex emotions, which play a vital role in the feeling of suffering. Pro mentions that there are pain medications for animals which prove that animals can feel physical pain. This is irrelevant because this issue is not about physical pain, its about emotional pain. My opponent does not contest that animals cant suffer on the human level, due to their lack of cognitive ability and emotion. I urge voters to reread my dentist example in my last speech (not refuted), which shows how the lack of an emotional response to pain effectively prevents suffering. Though, given that not recognizing animal rights enables animal experimentation, it wouldn't matter if animals can truly suffer anyway. There's an outweighing benefit to not recognizing the right to freedom from suffering, which hasn't been refuted. What is a Just action? I respectfully find it ridiculous that Pro doesn't want to define what a just action is. The resolution questions a Just society, and I would expect that a Just society would act according to what is just. At that point we need to know what being Just actually means, which isn't explained properly. This is a big issue because until we know what it means to be just, we can't make a positive statement towards the resolution because we don't know what affirming actually means. For instance, What if the resolution said, Resolved: A contra-mecha-destructo-bomb society requires the recognition of animal rights. How is he supposed to affirm if he doesn't explain what a contra-mecha-destructo-bomb society does? Clearly, an understanding of the subject is necessary before we can make a positive statement for the topic. Concessions? ?? Pro says this:"my opponent agrees that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals". He does not specifically outline where I agree to this, so I will have to decipher it. I did at one point agree that "humans having the ability to abuse animals doesn't mean that its justified". However, this only means that abusing animals isn't good. Just because abuse isn't morally right doesn't mean that its morally wrong. Actions can also be morally permissible, or neutral, which means that animal abuse not being good doesn't automatically mean its bad. Morality is not so black and white. Conclusion:I have offered a clear way to determine whether a just society recognizes animal rights; Utilitarianism. My opponent said that this was "acceptable" and did not contest my justifications for it being the best way to determine Justice. Thus, judges will be voting for whoever can benefit the greatest amount of people. My opponent has not contested that animal experimentation and food consumption save millions of lives. Thus, it would appear that the Utilitarian benefit lies with me. Though, my opponent seems to think that animal experimentation is consistent with a Pro position. But his quotes I mentioned earlier show that if animals have rights, no thing would be just if it violated them. Clearly, forcing animals into cages to be experimented on would be a violation of rights, and therefore unjust according to my opponent. So the only option is to not recognize animal rights, since this is the only option that would consider animal testing as a good thing, which it is. There are other points of clash here, but this is a key one that I think negates pretty well. I urge voters to recognize that recognizing animal rights is simply not practical, and thus not moral or just. At least, according to the Utilitarian framework that has been accepted. Good luck to my opponent in his final round.