Resolved: It is immoral not to extend rights to living animals.

I affirm. Definitions:immoral - conforming to standards of bad behaviorextend - to expand in effectrights - the abilities to live and be free from sufferingliving animals - animals who can respond to their environmentsMy standard is NET BENEFITS FOR HUMANS AND ANIMALS. This is a fair framework that gives the Pro and Con sides equal access to the ballot. Thus, the winner of this debate should be the one who creates the most benefits for humans AND animals.My plan is that we uphold the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is a law passed by President Nixon that protects endangered and threatened species. Upholding the ESA is one of many ways we can extend rights to living animals; thus, it should be valid for this public-forum-type debate. Without the ESA, fewer rights would be extended to animals because many of them would become extinct or extirpated. The way I achieve the resolution is by proving that it is immoral NOT to extend the Endangered Species Act.The Pro burden is that failure to extend the Endangered Species Act does more harm than good (as dictated by my definition of “immoral” and by my plan).The Con burden is that extending basic rights to animals does overwhelmingly more harm than good for humans and animals (the framework of the debate).Contention 1: The Endangered Species Act is economically beneficial. The United States is economically desperate, making any method of recovery a “good behavior”. Subpoint A: The Act provides millions of dollars each year for local communities. A 2006 study by the University of Montana found that the return of wolves to Yellowstone brings an estimated $35 million in tourist revenue and DOUBLE that after cycling through the local economy. Moreover, the total economic value of maintaining healthy ecosystems in four Florida cities transcends $3 billion. Local governments have a moral obligation to provide their citizens with good schooling and sufficient opportunities; the capacity to do this is suppressed if the Endangered Species Act is not upheld. Subpoint B: The Act provides economic advantages on a national level. According to Defenders of Wildlife, wildlife-related recreation generated more than $120 billion in 2006. In addition, wildlife watching generated almost $45 billion and provided over 860,000 private secotr jobs. Finally, visitors to national parks spend $28 billion on fishing, hunting, and hiking, leading to more than 400,000 private and public sector jobs. The U.S. is currently handicapped by an unemployment rate of about 8 percent. To fix this and inherently improve the quality of life for citizens, the Endangered Species Act should be protected. Subpoint C: The Endangered Species Act promotes human productivity. Annual benefits from ecosystem services total $33 billion in soil maintenance and $30 billion from insect pollination. Moreover, some keystone species benefit human health. The pacific yew tree, for example, has led to the development of a natural cancer-treatment drug. Another example is the Gila monster lizard, which ahs been used to alleviate the effects of diabetes. Thus, the Endangered Species Act continues to play a vital role. By protecting the basic rights of critical species like crocodiles, fish, and bears, diseases can be prevented, increasing the overall productivity, stability, and competitiveness of various nations. It is simply immoral not to strive for these qualities.Contention Two: Extending rights to animals improves human health. National governments are morally obligated to protect the lives of their citizens, as mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Subpoint A: Dependence on ecosystems. When a species becomes endangered because it has been deprived of its ability to live, the ecosystem slowly falls apart. Humans depend on healthy ecosystems for purify their own environment. Without ecosystems of living animals, humans would lose access to clean air, water, and land. The ability to enjoy opportunities and contribute to important causes improves if humans have access to basic necessities like these. The only way to ensure that is if animals are given a few basic rights. Subpoint B: Medical. According to States United for Biomedical Research, the armadillo has been responsible for a treatment against leprosy to be treated in all areas of the world in which leprosy is still prevalent. Another example is bats, which, according to scientists from Texas, could substantially increase human lifespan. Some hypotheses are made about fruit flies and their potential to unlock the mystery of Alzheimer’s. Others reveal that the gila monster can help control glucose levels and allow people to lose weight. The fact that the list extends beyond these examples shows that giving living animals some basic rights to live independently signify substantial paveways for human enhancement and life. Contention Three: Animals have complex thought, assimilating them closely with humans. First, Human beings are complex, evolved creatures who are afforded rights on the grounds that they can think and feel pain. Other animals, like dolphins, dogs, jaguars, bats, hawks, and giraffes, can think and feel pain. It is immoral to extend rights to some entities that can think but not to others. Equality is the keystone of many moral systems internationally, and it can only be pursued if animals have at least one or two of the fundamental rights that humans, a type of animal, enjoy for themselves. Second, compassion is a much more reasonable alternative to self-interest. Tigers, crabs, and parrots cannot drive automobiles and do not play chess with one another. Humans are superior to animals in many respects. With this disparity of power, they could use it to help or harm animals. Using the benefits of a human mind to harm other animals is analogous to a self-centered refusal to help the poor. It is a good behavior to be mindful of our peers and a bad behavior to abuse them simply because they cannot generate counter-attacks.Contention Four: Not extending rights to living animals is inconsistent with our intuitions. First, the evolutionary attachment of humans to other animals demands that other animals receive the respect of “rights”. Ever since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, it has been concluded and accepted that human beings are related by common descent to all other animals. Failure to care for an ape or ostrich is analogous to failure to care for a cousin or sister-in-law. Furthermore, not extending these basic rights to life and freedom from pain violates the concept of reciprocity. For example, dogs are known for developing a bond with humans, respecting their rights and avoiding to bite or injure them. When dogs and other pets respect human beings as entities in nature, they enter with humans into a social contract. The animals that are capable of respecting basic human rights are the same ones that should be respected by humans. Finally, cruelty to animals is the sign of an uncivilized society. It encourages violence and barbarism in society. A society that respects animals and restrains base instincts is by definition more civilized. Since civility is a good behavior, and bad behavior defines morality, it is simply immoral not to extend very rudimentary rights to animals.I would like to reiterate my burdens in today’s debate. I must prove that upholding the Endangered Species Act is more “right” than “wrong”, because that is my plan; it is one way to achieve the resolution while advocating something that is practical and balanced. I do NOT have to prove that the utilization of animals for hunting or food is wrong. Since the Endangered Species Act can still be upheld with the production of meat, hunting of common birds, etc., any arguments that do not refute my plan of upholding the Endangered Species Act are invalid unless they support a counter-plan offered by the Con.I ask Con to follow the expectations I set forth in Round 1.Thus, I affirm.