Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

Note: The judges might want to acknowledge that Con managed to exceed the character limit by a substantial amount in his rd. 3 argument. See comments for details. This may have affected how evenhanded this debate can be considered. For the sake of pursuing a level playing field in this last round, I am going to exploit the glitch that enables one to exceed the limit. Rebuttals to Con's comments on my opening arguments: 1) "This point Pro has made isn't advancing his argument substantially. It may be slightly similar to proving a negative. "Why not?" ... Why not, is not an argument, nor is it a reason." It seems that Con did not finish reading my first argument before he started commenting on it. A reader who reads the entire argument can clearly see that the sentences Con picked as examples of not "advancing the argument substantially", were merely opening sentences leading to the actual argumentation. Con criticised the HEADING of my first argument for not advancing the argument, apparently not realising that I naturally give reasons other than "Why not?" in the actual body text. This is not to say that "Why not?" is "not an argument", like Con claims. Asking why, is a crucially important and necessary thing to do when encountering irrational and arbitrary rationalisation for injustice. Con is effectively claiming that questioning the status quo and traditional or existing values, and concluding that they have no rational basis, is not a reasonable act to commit or to appeal to. Con compares asking "Why not?" to proving the negative, when it is quite the opposite. By asking "Why not?", I am trying to examine the reasons for unequal treatment between species, and I am concluding that there are no rational principles behind it. An appeal to a lack of valid, rational reasoning by the contender's side IS indeed an argument, and a strong one. "... all examples of extended rights have been for humans, not animals." So what? Con is obviously missing the whole point of my first argument, which is that drawing the line for "extended rights" at the species boundary is arbitrary. He goes on to accuse me of appealing to tradition, whereas this sentence of his clearly contains an Appeal to Tradition fallacy. "Secondly, this is an 'Appeal to Tradition' ... ." According to Con's source, Appeal to Tradition takes the logical form of "We have been doing X for generations. / Therefore, we should keep doing X." or "Our ancestors thought X was right. / Therefore, X is right." The source states, "Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, 'this is the way it has always been done' ... ." However, quite obviously, in the case of equal rights, equality and the handing out of equal rights is NOT the tradition. It is not what we have been doing for generations. It is certainly not what our ancestors thought was right. Quite the contrary. Equality is the result of rational thinking and structured thought. Rational thinkers started asking, "why do we rate minorities and other races lower than ourselves?" and "why do we not give everyone equal rights?" When people began realising that there are no valid answers to these questions, minorities began getting equal rights. "There is no question to the superiority of humans, on all levels of measurement. We operate machinery, converse with others, solve complex mathematical problems, have a diverse vocabulary, and the ability to use logic at a far more advanced level than animals. We are superior." Who exactly sets the paradigm of "superiority" as the ability to operate machinery, converse, solve maths problems and use logic? I do not agree with this reasoning, as it is an arbitrary, painfully anthropocentric view. Why is the fact that humans can drive a forklift any more valuable than the fact that opossums can emit a protein that can neutralise nearly all poisons that enter their bodies? [1] Why is the fact that humans can construct syllogisms any superior to the fact that a salamander can naturally regenerate lost limbs? [2] Why is the fact that we have the means to torture millions of nonhumans any superior to the fact that a stranded human will almost certainly lose in a fight with a vicious tiger, for example? "We are one species, we don't kill each other within our own species for survival reasons." Yes, we do. We even eat each other for survival (and other) reasons. [3] "It is natural to see other species attacking/killing other species than themselves. It should thus be natural for us to use animals as a means of survival, correct?" Yes, it could be considered natural. But that does not mean that we ought to do it. Con is committing the naturalistic fallacy [4]. The fact that something happens in other nature does not mean that it ought to happen amongst humans as well. We do plenty of things that go against nature. For example, according to Con's fallacious logic, we should seize operating machinery, conversing with others, solving mathematical problems and having a diverse vocabulary or the ability use advanced logic, as these are all things that other animals do not practice. Con spends a lot of time arguing that we are vitally DIFFERENT from other animals, only to lead himself into a trap by asserting that, in fact, we still ought to look to other animals for moral guidance. Con should decide whether he thinks we are above other nature or at its level. Also, as con states, nonhuman animals often kill others for SURVIVAL reasons. Yet the animal industry is far past the point of survival reasons. As I stated in rd. 2, developed countries no longer need animal products to survive. Moreover, the animal industry is far from anything that could be considered "natural". I challenge anyone to sincerely apply the traditional definition of the term "natural" (existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind [5]) to the act of tossing 150,000 sentient newborns via a conveyor belt into a mechanical shredder EVERY DAY, just because they are the wrong sex (and that number refers to merely one poultry facility). [6] 2) "If the line shouldn't be drawn at just our species, then why should we then drawn the line that it's ok for other animals to kill each other, but not ok for us? ... There are in fact omnivorous animals in nature, that also don't need meat to survive. ... If these animals warrant the same rights as humans, then it would be immoral for bears to be eating other animals when they can most certainly survive on a herbivorous diet." Once again, Con is committing the naturalistic fallacy like before. Also, he creates an unwarranted connection between rights and morality. The fact that one has done something immoral does not mean that one should be stripped of one's rights. Furthermore, to talk of immorality with a bear acting instinctively is meaningless. Morality and immorality require a rational agent. You cannot act immorally if you are not capable of rationally pondering your actions. A baby might yell at a funeral or punch someone, but you would not hold her responsible as she, bluntly put, did not know what she was doing. Similarly, an animal who does not - and could not - know better, cannot be considered a moral agent. Advanced cognitive beings like humans, on the other hand, have the capability of judging their actions and the actions of others. This is what morality is based on: the fact that one can make conscious choices. This developed cognitive capability has also lead to many negative things, for example, the current state of the animal business. Using the same brains we used to create such a ruthless industry, we can examine and judge the morality of it. Nonhumans could not do either of these things. (But, as I said, it is important not to assert an arbitrary connection between rights and morality. The fact that animals (or newborn or severely disabled humans, for that matter) cannot act as moral agents, does not mean that they do not deserve rights.) Rebuttals to Con's comments on my rebuttals: 1) "You said it yourself that there's no reason for rights not to stretch worldwide, so If you suggest that animals rights to be universal, the U.S. definitely qualifies as a place that would be affected." It definitely qualifies as a place that would be affected. However, it does not qualify as a baseline. Con himself said, "There is no baseline for rights." Yet, he insists on universalising US-specific conditions and rights, as if they somehow form a baseline that are/should be followed globally. "How are we to establish animals rights, without even finding a common ground for human rights." I mentioned the example of the sanctity of life and the right to life. IF you accept those principles, it would be contradictory to support killing nonhumans. There is indeed no common ground for human rights. However, the question here is not the specific rights, but that whatever rights are given to humans in any given society, equal rights should also be given to other sentient beings in that society. "[Disabled people] aren't supposed to be disabled, but due to whatever disease or genetic mutation they suffered, they are an exception to what a fully functional human is, and should still be treated with care." This is a grossly ill-informed statement. There are several angles I could look at this from, but I will go with the biological standpoint. There is no such thing as a "fully functional human". Genetic mutations are a tool of natural selection. Without them, all life would still exist at a primitive level. Granted, most mutations are negative as far as survival is concerned, but to say that a disabled person is not "supposed to be disabled", is utterly ignorant. There is no objective prototype of a human being. No one is "supposed to be" the way they are. They just are. Similarly, when our ancestors slowly started to evolve from hairy, small-brained quadrupedal animals into the hairless, big-brained, bipedal beings we are today, you might have thought the evolved individuals were not "supposed to be" like that, as they were different from their predecessors. But, as we know in hindsight, those developments turned out to be largely positive. A species is never "complete", so it is absurd to claim that one is "supposed to be" a certain way. "Just because some are unfortunate to have these disabilities doesn't make it a baseline." Yes, and just because some are "unfortunate" not to have the ability to talk or walk does not make THAT the baseline. Who is it that creates these baselines that conveniently include all of our kind but not of any other? "Animals gaining rights would substantially affect our economy and individuals directly. ... Pro is asking why we have the right to 'shatter' other societies and animals, and I can ask a likewise question: why can animals shatter our society and affect hundreds of thousands of people and their lifestyles?" Again, why is our society more valuable than nonhuman animals' societies? We are destroying theirs based on the fact that if we did not, our economy and individuals would be "substantially affected" (and I have even shown why these effects would not be unreasonably detrimental). How is that justified? In any case, this is a completely perverted argument. To reiterate: we first destroy and abuse other societies to the point where we are (supposedly) dependent on them. At this point we refuse not to abuse them because if we did that, according to some strange, upside down reasoning, they would be destroying us. Somewhere along the line Con has asserted that if we let go of using and abusing animals, the ANIMALS would somehow be wronging US. As if the animals would somehow turn to the perpetrators who decide to shatter OUR society. This is the equivalent of enslaving a people, and, when the slaves demand freedom and fight for it, regarding the SLAVES as the bad guys. (Obviously animals cannot demand freedom as such, which is why we have to speak for them.) 2) "This whole rebuttal is ignorant and is based on no fact or evidence whatsoever. Pro casually ignores the statistics I brought to the table. I showed in my opening arguments with facts, of how hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, astronomical amounts of money would disappear from a circulating economy, and 90 billions of pounds of food would disappear and no longer be available to a large group of people. Does that sound moral to you? Pro skips over this by simply saying that something else will replace it." I do not quite understand how Con could overlook the statement I made which makes all of these facts and statistics irrelevant. I did not "simply say" that something else will replace the animal industry (and the consequential money, jobs and food). No. It is quite obvious that something HAS TO replace it. People HAVE TO eat. I do not know what "fact or evidence" Con needs for this claim. I suppose I could cite a children's biology book that states that people need energy from food in order to live, but that could come across as a bit patronising... Anyway, as I said, the money, food and jobs that would disappear would instantly be replaced by others (plant-derived alternatives), because they would HAVE TO be replaced. I do not know how I could elaborate this point further to make it more accessible. Also, as I demonstrated in rd. 3, the food that would disappear would be replaced by a significantly LARGER amount of food, which could potentially be used to feed millions of currently starving people. 3) "One thing that will not be replaced is the 60 billion in revenue a year from animal feed production." Right. So, it is better to spend 60 billion a year for animal feed instead of using that food and money to, for instance, feed the hungry? I do not see why 60 billion dollars in the pockets of a vanishingly small number of people should be considered a more noteworthy consequence than all the negative aspects of the animal industry that I have mentioned. Closing statements: Instead of successfully refuting my arguments, Con's rebuttals have mostly introduced even more contradictions in Con's reasoning. For example, the idea that, if the animal industry was abolished, the animals would somehow be wronging us, pretty much epitomises the twisted nature of a lot of Con's arguments. As a personal note (off the record), I would like to mention that I am not necessarily advocating an immediate abolishment of the entire animal industry. However, any moral being versed on the current state of the industry knows that fundamental changes need to be made. Thank you for this debate! Citations: [1] http://yhoo.it... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly...