Resolved: A just society requires the recognition of animal rights.

My opponent defined utilitarianism as the following:“I defend Utilitarianism, which states that actions are just when they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is the correct interpretation of justice for two reasons: 1) Utilitarianism is objective; there is a definite right or wrong answer as to whether or not something produces a net benefit. 2)Utilitarianism, by definition, maximizes happiness for as many people as possible. This is a good thing because all humans are striving for happiness in life, ad Utility helps us do this. ”I accepted my opponent’s definition of utilitarianism, because his definition of utilitarianism is not in conflict with societal recognition of animal rights. But how could this be? My opponent offered two examples of what “violations” of animal rights may be: a use of animals in medical research and consumption of them for food. I have contended that animals have the right not to be made to needlessly suffer, and my opponent has not disagreed. The examples that my opponent has cited (use of animals for medical research and food), even though they may cause animal suffering, in no way violates animal rights because the use of animals for purposeful activities that maximize human benefit (utility) are not needless. Because the use of animals for food or medical research serve the higher purpose of benefitting people, any suffering that may result from those activities to animals is not needless and therefore justified. Why are they justified? Because if justice is where each are given their due, and animals are not entitled not to be eaten or experimented upon where those activities benefit humans, then it is morally justifiable to experiment on animals. To that end, human benefit (utility) is maximized and animal rights (the right not to be made to needlessly suffer) are not violated. As an aside, “deontology” is a nice word but it is not what I am arguing. My opponent is transposing semantics in an attempt to deconstruct his own straw-man version of my case. In that, my opponent fundamentally misunderstands that which has been presented to him. He has failed to counter any point I have offered and opted rather to repeat himself than to respond to what I have offered. Furthermore, I have not failed to define justice, and I find it irresponsible of my opponent to accuse me of failing to define it when it is clearly in the first paragraph of the second round. My opponent’s fallacious logic:“My opponent seems to think animal testing is a reason to violate animal rights rather than say they shouldn't have them at all. .. This means he cannot access the benefits of animal experimentation and food consumption because these would require the violation of the right to life or freedom. As such, animal research and animal rights are mutually exclusive. ”At no point did I say that animals have a right to life or freedom. I have exclusively contended that animals have a right not to be made to needlessly suffer. My opponent, rather than arguing that point, has fallaciously misconstrude what animal rights are, persuant to this debate and therefore has inflicted no harm to my case. Use of animals for food or medical research does not violate that right because any suffering that animals may experience from those activities is not needless due to the benefit to humankind they yield. Accordingly, there is no conceivable possibility that utilitarianism designed to maximize human benefit as argued by my opponent is in violation of animal rights. My opponent seems to be unable to grasp this. Again, my opponent has not disagreed that animals have the right not to needlessly suffer and ignored the responses that I have made to his contentions. Therefore, my opponent has done no damage to my case because he has comprehensively failed to counter it. In Summery: Animals feel physical pain, and my opponent and I do not disagree over this. Pain is something that all living things that can experience it desire to avoid, because to be in pain is to suffer. My opponent agrees that just because humans have the ability to abuse animals does not give them the right to abuse them. If my opponent accepts that humans do not have the right to abuse animals, then he must also accept that animals have the right not to be abused by humans -this is just the next logical step that my opponent failed to recognize. We have already stipulated that animal rights only exist in human to animal interaction. Abuse effectuates needless suffering, but purposeful use does not. My opponent has championed the positive effects of human use animals to maximize human benefit through consumption of animals for food or use of animals in medical research. Because these activities are beneficial to humans, humans are not subjecting animals to abuse by subjecting them to needless suffering. If animals have a right not to be abused (subjected to needless suffering) then animals are due recognition of that right. Just societies recognize the rights of all who are due rights, and because animals are due recognition of their right not to be subjected to abuse a just society is obliged to recognize that right. The Result of This Debate: My opponent has made no attempt to actually counter anything I have said and because he cannot introduce new evidence in the final round he is barred from introducing any new examples. The examples he has offered have been logically countered, or were irrelevant if they were not specifically addressed. As a debater, my task is to offer a case and respond to the logic presented by my opponent -which I have done. I have proven that a just society is required to recognize animal rights. My opponent has fundamentally misconstrued my argument, and failed to prove his own case because I have further proven how utilitarianism is not in conflict with a recognition of animal rights. I look foreword to my opponent’s response, though the outcome of this debate compels an affirmative victory.