Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

Thanks for the great debate Zaradi!EgoismI do not see how I strawmanned con on egoism. Actually, con is being inconsistent. This round he states egoism is not to determine what is good or bad and that it "refute that things can ever be morally obligatory". But when he first introduced it in his initial case he said egoism is the, "moral belief that intentions, not the actions themselves, are what obligate us to do certain things." Therefore egoism does very much state that moral obligations exist contrary to what con is now saying. This is the last round so he can't change his case and it's poor conduct to act like that's how he first set it up. It is not just a further clarification of the definition as con states. It's an outright new round argument to support his framework. Since con initially stated moral obligations exist and can't change his stance in the last round, we have to assume obligations do exist. The problem with cons point is he's arguing from the interest of the individual when really morality is collective. So the collective interest for society perhaps. (I would add animals in there.) Otherwise if egoism were true, we would have no right to conflict with another's self interest leading to a barbaric society where rule and law were discarded. The moral framework envelopes more than just the individual causing moral obligations to indeed exist. This may sound like a last round argument but that's only because con only started arguing moral obligations don't exist this round forcing me to make new ground. To reiterate more on why it is morally obligatory to recognize animals rights, rights entail obligations. It is inevitable. Suppose you say you have the right to life. Well do I say I am allowed to kill you since moral obligations don't exist? That makes no sense. Rights cannot exist while moral obligations do not. If I have the right to live in absence of outweighing factors, humans are obligated to not kill me. That's a basic constitution of what rights are.In response to the "unjust application" point the previous round, con stated, "I'm not arguing that our moral framework only applies to humans". The point of the contention was to show that the moral framework is not only applicable to humans so I think it was completely fair for me to say con dropped it. Not that I believe it proves my case. It was actually done much for the purpose of framework.C.1I feel this was much more a premise than a contention. I see no reason to refute it since I agree we would not have meat if we gave animals rights. That's a sacrifice for the greater good. I was also correct in saying con didn't argue an impact. The only impact was stated in other contentions so this contention itself did not have an argued impact. Like I said, it was merely a premise. So yes, viewers may extend cons point that giving animals rights entails loss of meat. I have no problem with that. It's kind of obvious anyway. C.2Con states that consumer demand would cause meat industries to run out of supply within months or weeks. I have three things to say. First off, a large increase in trade would cause a positive burst of economic activity. So even if the latter affects were negative, there would be an initial positive affect. Secondly, con mentions it taking months. Well how many months? Months could not be very quick at all. Remember, con is arguing it would cause a global economic collapse. The failure of the meat department, especially considering the other industries that would boom because of it, would have to be extremely quick in order to cause a global fall out. And even then, it's not wholly plausible. Thirdly, society has been conditioned to the acceptability of eating meat for their entire existence. Giving animals rights would be one of the most massive social changes undergone in human history. The change would be extremely gradual. I can not imagine such a huge action to be instantaneous. It's simply inconceivable. This is a simple concept of competition. Companies not only have to compete with each other but with environmental and social changes. Yes companies would fail but others would profit because of it. If people had nowhere to buy meat, they'd buy something else. Companies who best provided non-meat foods would prosper. You couldn't visit Burger King for lunch so you'd go to a different restaurant. The economic activity would still very much exist. It would just be different. It's also funny how con asks us if we would really go to Subway if they only sold salad and vegie meals and states, "Unless you're a vegetarian/vegan, I think not.". Well that's the thing. Giving animals rights would mean we would become vegetarian. Con does not contend that grain, nuts, fruit and vegetable industries would take the meat industries place, only says "a transfer between the two would take much longer". I do not see it that way. People need to eat. It's a first requirement of survival. However quick the meat industry fell, other industries would boom just as quickly. Grocery shopping probably takes place multiple times every week for households. With none of those people buying meat, there would be a massive increase in other products being bought. Just as much food would be bought. Everyone would just be buying fruit, vegetables, grains and nuts instead of meat.The many programs that would inevitably rise from giving animals rights would not in itself outweigh the jobs lost I agree. But that coupled with the booming of other industries would.C.3As C.2 is refuted, this bares no weight.I still fail to see how cons example lends much credibility to his case. Saying it proves it's not a far-fetched idea falls completely short in saying it's probable. There are countless differences to the two scenarios, which con doesn't really try to refute, that all it does is really show it's possible. It does not show it's likely. Nor does it show it plausible.The jumps from no meat, to global economic collapse, to nuclear world war III are all largely unsubstantiated rendering cons case largely refuted. My caseCon drops consciousness and self-ownership.It is unfortunate that con claims I dropped two of his points when that is an utterly false assertion. I addressed intrinsic worth and feelings right with consciousness. Viewers may see for your self. The mere fact that I did not address them in three separate points does not constitute a drop. I addressed them all together due to similarity but I clearly mentioned them all. "Animals have intrinsic worth because of their power to act and contribute to society." <- Just one quote I said...Con is also making a mistake in saying animals must meet all the conditions in order to have rights. That is not the case. In fact, I strongly contend consciousness and self-ownership together undoubtedly form rights. Self-ownership is the principle that you are in ownership of your body. What does ownership entail? It entails certain rights. What else would it. If ownership entails rights and con concedes animals have self-ownership, then animals have rights.Con strawmans me. I never held the position that the right to life cannot be lost as he seems to imply. If a crime truly did warrant the death penalty, then the man would have lost his right to live. I also honestly don't see how it addresses my point. I still find it a very easy thing to establish. Let me reiterate what I said earlier. Rights and obligations are necessarily inclusive. Suppose we establish I have the right to live. Now suppose Zaradi says we have no moral obligations so he can just kill me. But wait a minute. Is there not a conflict? If I have the right to live, Zaradi has the moral obligation to recognize that right. Otherwise he's infringing upon morallity. My rights entail recognition. If I have the right to live, Zaradi has the moral obligation to not kill me. If he did not have the moral restraint, then I wouldn't really have the right at all.