Animal Rights

Con concedes my observation that "animal rights" doesn't necessarily entail many rights for animals, nor does it entail certain rights. As long as I can show that even one animal right should be recognized, I win the debate (as observed in R1). The resolution states: "Animals should have rights. " My position is to affirm that animals should have some rights. Con's BOP is to show that animals should not have any rights. Con drops, and thus concedes, this. If this observation holds, I win on my third contention alone. Let me quote Con's rebuttal to it:"My opponent says that humans will have better health with rights of animals. This is definitely false, because if animals have rights, we can't kill them, and many animals are for medicines. My opponent says if animals do not have rights then ecosystems will be in danger and in ways, it will harm humans. Who cares about the ecosystems? We can't even eat the animals if animals have rights. There are clearly almost no benefits for animals to have rights for humans, but advantages of animals not having rights. "Con is clearly misrepresenting my argument. My argument was to afford the "right against hunting" for endangered species. It is an animal right, and is sufficient to affirm if upholded. The right against hunting afforded to endangered species won't stop us from "eating the animals," or restrict clinical testing, and so forth. Recognizing this one animal right has no harms and plenty of benefits for humans. Con's own framework is based on benefit to humans. Vote Pro right there. . .. .I've already established why I win this debate. Con's own framework, with regards to the right against poaching, does not combat with mine. Under both frameworks, a right against poaching is guaranteed. In fact, Con has no direct objection to this. All Con argues is that recognizing "animal rights," at least insofar as the definition of the abolitionist animal rights movement is concerned, will harm society. But the debate is about "rights of animals," not the "animal rights movement. " I think that is quite simply why I win this debate. Regardless, for the sake of completeness, I will proceed to defend my other arguments as well. UtilityCon claims that I asserted that human rights and animal rights are the same. This is a straw-man of my case. In other words, I never actually said "human and animal rights are the same. " Here is what my argument regarding utility was: morality should be evaluated on the basis of pleasure and suffering. It shouldn't be evaluated on any other basis. It's clear that humans are a unique species of sorts, but every species is unique in the animal kingdom: that's the purpose of classifying animals into species. There are no differences between humans and animals that are morally relevant. Since suffering/pleasure is the base for judging morality, animals should be afforded equal moral consideration. I agree humans are unique. But they are not "more unique," and Con hasn't established that. All individual species are unique. Con has dropped that there are no differences that are morally relevant. Con also drops my justifications of utilitarianism, which implies that Con concedes the pleasure-pain framework. As such, any objection with regards to humans being unique is irrelevant. Con also says, and I quote, "I never said anything about no humans included in the definitions. "I don't understand what this means. Con and I agreed that "animals" does not include humans, but if Con wants to include humans, go ahead: in that case you have already lost the debate, because your whole argument on animal testing is based on the human right to life. Of course, Con's arguments indicate that I'm probably misinterpreting what Con means here: in which case, I request a clarification. FairnessCon says he doesn't understand why I am talking about humans when the debate is about animals. The resolution says "animals should have rights. " But who is giving the animals these rights? As I clarified in R1 (the clarification being accepted by Con), society is the one recognizing animal rights. Humans are the ones recognizing animal rights. Therefore, what humans value matters. The second piece of context here is merely reiterating my contention about utilitarianism: there are no morally relevant differences between humans and animals, so the same standard of justice is applied to both. Con doesn't actually address the substance of the argument (in that fairness requires not discriminating, and species-ism is a form of discrimination). . .. .I think I've done enough to merit a ballot in my favor.