Animal Welfare is Superior to Animal Rights.

----> By moral community, I basically mean the entiriety of every entity that can engage in moral decisions, also known as a person ( a human doesn't have to be a person) See source for definition (the 4th definition, it pertains to philosophy) [1]. By defintiion, a person is a rational being. I contend that because animals are not rational, they are not persons, which means they are NOT part of the moral community. >>>Animals are rational<<< 1. My opponent seems to misunderstand what "sapience" and "rationalty" mean. They do not mean consciousness or sentience, traits that are exhibited by both animals and humans. Sapience/rationality is the ability to make judgements. Humans are homo SAPIENS; we are the only known organism to have sapience. Sapicence can be thought of as another facutly of intelligence. While every animal has a degree of intelligence, no non-human animal has been observed to have sapience. 2. My opponent's video show no evidence for the sapience of animals. They are merely videos of unique case studies on animal relationships - in a family fun documentary style of course. Examples of cats being friends with dogs are rare and a pleasant sight, but they in no way prove that animals are sapient. >>><<< "I would like to observe that my opponent has a burden of proof to not only prove that animal welfare is superior to animal cruelty, but to prove it in all cases. " ----> Prove it in all cases? I don't even know what this means. I will attempt to show some points of why Animal Welfare is superior to Animal Rights, but I'm not sure if I can fulfill my proposed burden until further clarifications. >>>Arguments<<< 1. Animal testing Animal welfare allows for animal testing; just for a limit on the amount of suffering being inflicted upon an animal. Animal testing has contributed GREATLY to medicine. In fact, it probably lead to the discovery/invention of most if not every drug since the 20th century [2]. And not just simple diseases, ones like polio have been marked off due to animal testing. So next time you see an animal right protestor, pat them on their shoulder for the wonderful indirect killing they are attempting to promote. 2. Entertainment Animal rights means the abolishment of pets. Heck, we can't even have Seaworld! Obviously, until my point about sapience is refuted, then we should fully be able to have them as pets in a responsible way. I have nothing much to say, because my proposed "burden" is quite vague. I have explained that animal welfare allows for animal testing, which in turn saves many human lives. How many of us are willing to let a child be attacked by a dog if the action of removing the dog is more painful? Of course we would rip that dog off to save the child's life. =====Conclusion===== My opponent's main and only argument is at best a misunderstanding of what rationality and sapience means. It doesn't mean the ability to think, or even to act contrary to normal behavior. It means the ability to make judgements and to reason. This has only been found in HUMANS, not non-human animals. Until then, I have nothing to respond to. ---References--- 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://royalsociety.org...