Animals are not entitled to protective rights.

Im sure it'll be a lot of fun! The format was intended to be in this(2nd round) only to be opening arguments and the 1st round would be acceptance. I should've been more clear with that, but thats what we got. So this round I will give opening statements and no rebuttal. Every subsequent round(and my opponent's next argument) will be a rebuttal. 1. Social Contract Theory doesn"t apply to Animals. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. [1] Since animals do not have the ability to take part in the social contract and give up sovereignty on their own accord, they are not entitled to the benefits the social contract gives. Indeed, not all humans fit this category (as we may use the procedure of voting as an example). But convicts, infants, and the mentally retarded all have the potential to grow, understand, and comply with the social contract. With all known animals other than humans, the potential is not there. Therefore, animals are not a part of the social contract which entitles its members to mutual protection under the law. 2. Anthropocentrism is and should be the basis of all action Humans inherently support those causes which support us. Whenever we farm, build factories, store goods, engage in commerce, conduct diplomacy, or anything else, our goal is to help humans. Environmentalism is a growing cause since the mid-20th century, a cause that many times seems to be in conflict with human activity. But the reason people are so concerned about it is they have a personal interest in it. If the Amazon rainforest is cut down, a huge natural resource will be gone and the effects on global warming could be devastating to humanity. But our interest here is not the welfare of the Amazon, but the effects of our actions on us. Similarly, people support animal rights largely because they feel empathetic towards them. We use animals for a huge number of benefits: biomedical research, cosmetic research, entertainment, and of course, food. "Animals were essential in the discovery of antibiotics, painkillers, antidepressants, and most other drugs you use when you're sick. Animal research also enabled researchers and physicians to perfect the techniques of organ transplantation, open heart surgery, and joint replacement. " - American Association for Laboratory Animal Science[2] While we may feel empathetic towards them, these benefits hugely outweigh the cost of empathy to animals. 3. The slippery slope of animal welfare. A. Animal protection laws, to be blunt, do not protect all animals, and certainly don't protect them all equally. Sarah McLachlan doesn"t show up on ASPCA commercials with cattle and chickens. The truth is, to most people, puppies are cuter. When we see beaten and abused dogs we empathize with them and will rush down to the shelter to save them. Other animals aren"t quite so cute. Here are the number of animals killed for food purposes in 2008, according to the USDA[3]: Cattle: 35,507,500 Pigs: 116,558,900 Turkeys: 271,245,000 Chickens: 9,075,261,000 If I didn't make my point in the last argument, we use animals for our welfare a lot. B. So if we are really going to protect animals, we should endeavor to protect them all. But where do we draw that line? Puppies are entitled to the protections. Then cats (I prefer dogs), cattle, pigs, turkeys, birds. .. But what about rats and pests that get into people's gardens and destroy material? Under this logic they must be protected as well. If you step on an ant have you committed a crime? Do Feral Hogs in Texas [4] have more of a right to crops than we do? Do Bacteria and viruses like E. Coli and HIV have a right to life? We support animal rights when it is convenient for us, to protect the cute. Protecting animal rights is inherently hypocritical if we protect some and not others. And if it's not hypocritical, then it's suicidal. [1] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Social_contract_theory [2] . http://www.whyville.net... [3] . http://www.animalliberationfront.com... [4] . http://icwdm.org...