Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognized In Society

Defense 1 - Morality A - God Commands it How can my opponent completely dismiss this argument? I find it absurd that my opponent thinks that this argument is useless since less than 2/7 of the world don’t believe in God. It is clear that the majority of people in the world believe in God. Whilst it is true that this argument does not apply to everybody but it cannot be completely dismissed since a large proportion of the human worldwide population believes in God. B - Happiness Requires it I am glad that my opponent has brought up egoism since this will allow me to introduce a late framework to this debate. FrameworkUnder egoism animals have rights.Animal rights is beneficial for human beings. Without proper treatment and care that animal rights promotes animals will ultimately become extinct. The extinction of any species is ultimately damaging to the human race. It would have devastating effects if multiple animals didn't receive animal rights and ended up extinct. Here are some examples to back up this theory. I have used this example in the previous round however I feel like it requires reiteration. Termites are detritivores and decomposers, meaning they consume decomposing plant matter and play vital roles in recycling ecosystem energy, as well as in balancing biogeochemical cycles. Unlike other detritivores, the termite gut is unique in that it contains microorganisms that break down cellulose (building blocks for plants), which is indigestible without this symbiotic relationship. Think about it … what would we do without termites to clean up all the decomposing material? We might drown is cellulose-based litter, like autumn leaves and tree branches!C - Acting immorally is irrationalI must quote my opponent because he raises some serious issues. “Obviously Pro prepared for this by saying that “if the amoralist holds that her pain is really bad (as opposed to bad for her) or resents others for not helping her, she would show practical irrationality.” This argument’s generally useless as well. A) not everyone can be expected to act rationally and B) many realize this and don’t feel that way. They know that something is bad for them and don’t expect other’s assistance.” My opponent seems to be forgetting that I specifically said: a moralist. I stated, clearly, that if a moralist holds that her pain is really bad or resents other for not helping her she would show practical irrationality. My opponent’s argument A is refuted by the fact that she was a moralist. Argument B is also refuted by this. Therefore, this is another unsuccessful rebuttal to my argument. Arguments regarding egoism have been refuted in my framework. Defense 2 - Needless suffering My opponent chooses to make a statement that will not have much relevance to the debate without a source to back this up. Nevertheless, I will quote and refute that statement now in case my opponent and readers of this debate have any doubt. “it cannot be needless, since they feel it is needed or wanted.” First, before I respond to this statement I would like to mention that I reject my opponent’s definition of unnecessary. I do not doubt the credibility of this definition and I understand that it is from a reliable source however it specifically states - not needed or wanted. The fact that it says: or, is an indication that it cannot be both needed and wanted in one situation. In this particular situation I do not think it is about want, since if this debate was to be about want then the debate would be solely based on personal opinion. Therefore the debate must be based upon what is needed. My opponent may be right when they say that they must feel like it is needed or wanted however there is no source or evidence to justify this claim. Secondly, this is not what defense of this argument is going to be based upon. It is not about personal opinion. You cannot feel that it is needed. If it is needed then it is not up to personal opinion. To need something is to suggest that something is necessary. This allows us to come to the conclusion that needless is the opposite and means something that is unnecessary. The egoistic argument has (again) been answered by my framework and my opponent’s argument regarding needless suffering is irrelevant to the resolution and doesn’t make sense (as explained above). My opponent has failed to refute my argument and has chosen to use his rebuttal to show why my argument is impossible - which it isn’t. Therefore, I believe that at this point in time I am winning on this argument. Defense 3 - Responsibility I will keep this brief since it doesn’t really require much to be said regarding this. My opponent claims that I didn’t respond to this, despite the fact that I did. I responded by providing sources about that my opponent claimed that I didn’t provide. Due to the character limit I cannot post these sources again however you can see them in my previous round if you look back on this. Scientific findings suggest that the positive correlation is due to this which you can read about in further detail on the website (in the sources). Another interesting fact to note is the fact that recent studies confirm that love is the number one cause of suicides. Surely, the website and this recent finding is enough to convince my opponent that they are incorrect. Rebuttal 1 - Dead and exploited animals are useful I will define exploited since it is included in my dictionary definition of animal rights “the action or fact of treating someone unfairly”” Eating meat for survival is not treating someone [or something] unfairly. It is fair (and logical) to eat animal meat if you are dying and in desperate need of food. We generally do not accuse sharks of violating us our human rights. Despite the fact that it is common knowledge that a shark attack resulting in a fatality is extremely unlikely. As a result of this rebuttal, it is clear that my argument falls in line with my definitions provided and my argument is in fact valid. My opponent makes the assumption that all societies are egoistic. His response to my argument suggesting that we would kill animals threatening our survival is poor. It is simply that an egoistic society would not do that. Is my opponent aware that there are other societies aside from egoistic ones? If he is then I am sure that this argument has been an error because this is a highly illogical and simple answer. You must remember that there are other societies besides your own. Rebuttal 2 - Impossible Without Going Extinct or Killing Most of the World Right, again this is covered by my previous round. My definition of animal rights clearly wasn’t defined enough so I defined the key terminology within that definition and it is clear now that it is perfectly okay to eat animals in the most desperate of situations. My opponent states that it is unrealistic to expect everybody in the world to manage surviving as a vegetarian however again this is covered by the newly defined definition of animal rights. If the cannot survive like this since they will be unable to survive without eating meat then it is perfectly acceptable to eat meat. The average American eats about 50 pounds of chicken per year, according to PBS. That adds up to about $250 a year just for chicken. Or, if you're a vegetarian, that'd be about $50 a year for black beans. In this case, you'd save $200 per year by going vegetarian.Let's play the same comparison game with steak versus tofu. A sirloin steak costs about $5.99 per pound, and contains 23 grams of protein per 4 ounces. Tofu is about $2.50 a pound, and gives you about 28 grams of protein in 4 ounces, according to one online grocery store. The average American eats about 65 pounds of steak per year. That means your yearly spending on steak could amount to about $400 or more, depending on the cuts of beef you like to buy. Compare that with about $163 a year for tofu. By going vegetarian, you'd save $237 or more per year. My opponent suggests that it is unrealistic for people to switch to vegetarianism since the vitamins provided by meat are much healthier and are in much greater quantity to vegetables. Meat's greatest strength is that it's a big source of protein. If you go without it, you'll need to obtain that protein from some other vegetarian source. Today's chicken breasts sell for around $5 a pound, and one chicken breast fillet gives you about 24 grams of protein per serving. Compare that with black beans, another source of protein; you can buy a can (approximately 1 pound) of black beans for about a buck, which will provide you with about 24 grams of protein per serving, as well. Of course, as I have said previously it is perfectly acceptable under my definition of animal rights to allow animals to be killed in extreme circumstances (ie. self defense and preventing starvation). Annually, $550 million are spent on meat in the USA alone! At the moment research is being done to find out how much money is spent on meat in the whole of Europe and North + South America. These statistics are expected to be relased in the next 10 years so I cannot use these. It is evident, however, that a lot of money is spent on meat since we can infer this from the money spent in the USA alone. With the saved money vegetarianism will be a much easier alternavtive than it is now and animal rights will be recognised! Sourceshttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com...http://charterforcompassion.org...http://wnyyradio.com...https://www.google.co.uk...http://meatonomics.com...