(non human) animals deserve rights (such as the right to life)

This was a good debate and has caused me to think deeper into the nature of sentience and utility. I hope that my opponent has also enjoyed this debate. ========== “Inhumane ‘without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.’ it is both cruel and without compassion.” Saying this would be like saying that brushing your teeth is inhumane, since brushing your teeth is “without compassion for misery or suffering”. My opponent also agreed that involuntary euthanasia is not “cruel” in his earlier argument. “‘Murderers’ very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids…” It appears that my opponent has failed to understand my previous rebuttal. I had said that correlation does not mean causation, yet my opponent continues to imply that torturing animals somehow causes people to murder. I repeat, it is much more likely that sadism causes both animal abuse and murder, and, among sadists, animal abuse decreases tendency to murder. “…this meat decreases our quality of life [4] and our quantity of life.” Of course an over-consumption of fats causes obesity. I never denied that. But this would be like saying water decreases our quality of life because people die from over-drinking water [1]. My opponent has said this in response to my statement that “meats have significantly higher digestive value than plants.” The irony is that is own source 4 proves my point. “Vegetarian diets do not decrease muscle mass and brain functionality” (Paraphrased) My opponent resorts to citing anecdotal evidence for this. However, this doesn’t prove his point. The source from Scientific American that I cited gave much more generalizable evidence of how meat consumption is beneficial to humans. In addition, I’d like to point out that Einstein turned vegetarian in the LAST year of his life [2]. Suggesting that vegetarianism caused Einstein to come up with his many ingenious theories regarding physics is then blatant dishonesty. My opponent also sources a study that states “those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher”. Yet, the study apparently makes no distinction between “those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken,” which brings into question, if the tendency to classify oneself as vegetarian has more to do with the results. Moreover, his source also states: “However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10,” Which ends up proving my point. “‘Humans have rights.’ This is not proven false by your first argument…” Here, my opponent tries to argue that slavery benefits society. I won’t go into it any further than saying that slavery doesn’t benefit slaves, who are part of society. The rest of his argument for his pt2 is rambling and flawed. My opponent’s statement, “because cows do not, cannot, complain about irreverent things is not proof that they do not know of their own existence” is irrelevant to my argument of degrees of sentience. Saying that degrees of sentience is irrelevant is like saying there is no difference between a homeless man with a cupful of pennies and a billionaire because they both have money. ========== Conclusion I have shown that: 1. Giving natural rights is not inherently good. 2. Animals lack any sort of sovereignty to maintain any kind of balanced contractual right. 3. Granting animals rights does not improve net utility. 4. Cattle farming is not inherently cruel. My opponent has failed to show or dropped: 1. Granting animals rights will be beneficial to either human society or wild animals. 2. Consumption of meat is harmful to human wellbeing. 3. Granting animals rights can be practically enforced. 4. Animals have even nearly the amount of sentience that humans do. It is acceptable to not grant animals rights. Vote CON. ========== [1]. http://www.nbcnews.com... [2]. http://www.ivu.org... GD, thank you, and have a nice day.