Dog Fighting Should Be Legal

I will begin by presenting my opening statements. ---My case--- Contention 1: The moral status of animals Although this debate is not on the morality of dog fighting, ethics and law are absolutely connected. I will argue in this contention that animals are sentimental beings with rights that the government ought to protect, and because dog fighting inherently violates such a right, then it ought to be illegal. According to utilitarian philosophy, any being that has an interest in not suffering deserves to have that taken into an account. [1] “When you pity a suffering animal, it is because you are perceiving a reason, a reason to change its conditions. And you can no more hear the cries of an animal as a mere noise that you can the words of a person. Another animal can obligate you in exactly the same way another person can…So of course we have obligations to animals. ”[2] So to put everything together in syllogism form, we get this (from Scott D. Wilson): (1) If a being is sentient, then it has a direct moral status. (2) (Most) animals are sentiment. (3) Therefore, (most) animals have direct moral status. [3] “"Sentience" refers to the capacity to experience episodes of positively or negatively valenced awareness. Examples of positively valenced episodes of awareness are pleasure, joy, elation, and contentment. Examples of negatively valenced episodes of awareness are pain, suffering, depression, and anxiety. ” [Ibid] Because animals have a direct moral status, they therefore have certain rights and can be wronged. Since dog fighting is a violation of an animal’s right and wellbeing, the government has a duty to protect the animal. I will elaborate more on this contention in the next round. Contention 2: Dog fighting harms the community A) Psychology In Lectures in Ethics, Immanuel Kant famously stated: “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. ”[4] Indeed, psychologists and researchers have confirmed Kant’s statement. Researchers have found that children who are exposed to animal cruelty and dog fighting are far more likely to commit crimes and domestic abuse later in life. [5] B) Other crimes Law enforcement officers and researchers have noted that dog fighting is often associated with many other crimes as well including illegal drugs, illegal guns, and homicide. Indeed, as one Ohio state detective notes: "We've busted rings run by black, Latino, Aryan, Asian and Russian gangs. The common thread is they're always - always - gang-related. A lot of times you can get more drugs and guns off the street by breaking up dog rings than you would breaking up drug rings. "It's a community menace in so many ways. If dogs don't show 'gameness,' they're either killed outright or let loose on the streets where they become a menace to everybody. They're trained to survive by doing whatever it takes. "[6] ---Danielle’s Case--- I am surprised and a bit disappointed in Danielle’s arguments. Danielle’s arguments are nothing more than non sequiturs and red herrings that have nothing to do with the debate topic. Since I am out of time, I will rebut her opening statements in depth in the next round. For now, I believe I have made a very solid case. Conclusion I have shown that Danielle’s arguments are largely irrelevant to the debate topic. I have shown that animals do have rights that the government ought to protect and that dog fighting is harmful to the community. Although Danielle has the burden of proof, I have given several good reasons as to why the government ought to keep dog fighting illegal. For these reasons, the resolution is soundly rejected. [1] Gruen, Lori, "The Moral Status of Animals", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ) . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2]Korsgaard, C. , 1996, The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . http://tannerlectures.utah.edu... [3] Wilson, Scott D. "Animals and Ethics. " Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Wright State University, n. d. Web. 07 June 2016. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4]Kant, I. Lectures on Ethics, translated and edited by P. Heath and J. B. Schneewind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . http://ebooks.cambridge.org... [5] . http://nationallinkcoalition.org... [6] . http://www.nydailynews.com...