Animals are not human beings, and they do not deserve the same treatment

Full Resolution and extent of debate: I will be debating the substance of the idea that mankind are obliged to treat animals with respect and make sure that they are treated in a righteous way. To give the debate perspective, it will be debated both what entitles animals to have rights - and opposite, what entitles humans to have rights. That will bring in questions about concepts like morality and justice but the main-theme of the debate will remain about animal rights/animal treatment. In case of more theoretical questions, the arguments will remain based on known theories and facts, while the debate will not consider religion nor other superhuman beliefs. In order to ensure the substance and validity of the debate, both sides must defend their arguments with fact and reason. It will not be debated how complex animal minds are, how they feel/interpret pain or what is beneficial or non-beneficial for animal welfare. The debate will not concern animal welfare or industrial animal agriculture or any likewise specifics on this topic about animal rights but the question on whether or not humankind as the superior race have any obligations towards other animal races. The debate is not aimed to reflect any real-life cases, though arguments may be supported by examples from real life, if this is found to be helpful. Rounds: Round 1: Presentation of debate, acceptance & opening statements Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Both sides defend their original arguments and round up Stick to the arguments of your original statement in round 2 & 3 Rules: -A forfeit or concession is not allowed - be sure that you want to defend your side throughout the debate before accepting. -No semantics, voting-conduct or trolling -Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before posting first arguments. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. -Sources must be stated clearly within the posts, and may be referenced to directly in the arguments and listed below in links, like it is the example in this post Definitions: Right (noun): Qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval ; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled Mankind: "The human race ; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind Consensus: A general agreement about something ; an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. Morality: Beliefs about what is right behaviour and what is wrong behaviour ; conformity to ideals of right human conduct Righteous: Morally good ; following religious or moral laws _____________________________________________________________________ My side in the debate (opening statement): In the debate, I will argue against (con) the above-mentioned idea that mankind is obliged to show any kind of respect or decency towards other animal species, since I do not believe that any objectively justifiable reason for this exists. Many people believe this, and feel like it is a moral obligation, and that all animals “deserve” to be treated with a certain decency. Nature is not about morality nor the romantic picture of justice that is often painted when describing the rights of animals. These concepts about morality and justice are something that man has created and not universal, natural laws. From the origins of our planet, nature has been about what species have been the strongest and most fit for life on this planet. All individual species have fought for their continual survival and the strongest, most superior species have been on top of the food chain. This system is what has sustained life on this planet for millions of years and ensured maintenance of the natural balance of life on earth. We should acknowledge this reality instead of abandoning it for these more romantic delusions created by Disney-movies and pet-hamsters, a by-product of our complex minds, because we do not owe other animals anything. We are not obliged towards any other species than our own. The main-concern for all animals are their own survival and the supply of their own demands. If for instance a wolf seeks shelter in a cave and finds some inferior animal inhabiting that cave, the wolf will not leave the cave to seek shelter elsewhere. It is not the “right” of the smaller animal to inhabit that shelter, and the wolf is not obliged to leave the animal in the cave and seek another shelter, even though the inferior animal was there first. All this said, I do not think that people should beat up their animals or violate animals when it can be avoided but my point is that animals are not prescribed to any rights or likewise concerning how they are treated by humans. ____________________________________________________________________ Sources: Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution http://www.merriam-webster.com...