Monkeys should be considered persons.

1. Lets refer back to the quote. "In the 16th century, philosopher Descartes stated that animals were just automata. Automata(autonomous) is any red-blooded machines without thoughts or wishes." Yes humans are made up of red blood cells, we agree on this. You failed to mention the characteristic of the "Red blooded machine" that I brought into question. The quote clearly describes these "Red blooded machines" as having no thoughts and no wishes. Humans clearly have thoughts and wishes, for example "I wish this debate was over" and "I don"t think a monkey could read this statement". So the "RED BLOODED MACHINES" described within your quote clearly are not human I don"t think this is controversial at all. The red-blooded machines described within your quote are animals. To further break down your quote of "In the 16th century, philosopher Descartes stated that animals were just automata. Automata is any red blooded machines without thoughts or wishes" Descartes quote broken down into stanard form is this. 1. Animals are automata. 2. Automata is any red-blooded machine without thoughts or wishes. 3. Therefore, Animals are red blooded machines without thoughts or wishes. We can agree humans posses thoughts and or wishes? I do not believe there can be any other interpretation of this quote with the information you have provided. 2. In round 2 and 3 you do not have any premises numbered. In round 1 you failed to put your argument into standard form when you included several sentences within each premise. In class our professor went over standard form for this project, and it was clearly stated that within round 1 each premise included within your standard form argument must be 1 sentence. Simply, any claim that was numbered in round 1 needed to be a single sentence so it could be easily understood and agreed upon. 2."Children are just like monkeys; they both can not defend themselves." We agree then that children and monkeys cannot defend themselves within a court of law. 3.Tipping in Japan and honking in Norway hold no relevance to this debate. "The humans don"t really understand monkeys and so are monkeys" What do you mean by this? Regardless of communication barriers between two human beings they still have equal rights. As stated on "OHCHR.ORG" (office of high commissioner of human rights" human rights are described as "Inherent to all human beings whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our HUMAN rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible." Your distinction between Angolans and Americans being of separate ethnic origins holds no weight in a debate over the rights afforded to human beings because we are all equal. We have already agreed upon a definition of persons. Your definition of rights "fitting or appropriate; suitable" does not apply within this debate. I believe this definition of rights is most suitable "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." I did not bring the term "red blooded machines" but I believe the red blooded machines lacking thoughts and wishes are non human. Being Sentient and rational are the two main differences between humans and animals. Monkeys are simply red blooded machines lacking thoughts or wishes and do not deserve to be afforded the same rights as you and I. In last two rounds you haven"t numbered any of your points, please number your points in order to reduce confusion and stay on the same thought line.