Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

Framework My opponent has chosen to ignore my framework. This is problamatic for them since under this framework animals have rights. Since my opponent has failed to refute the framework it is clear that this will affect their argument significantly. Niezche 1 You have used God as a base for moral princaples which I clearly refuted by showing that you can be moral without God. I even demonstrated how God can make people immoral in this rebuttal. 'I do not believe in God' was only a very small fraction of the rebuttal that I provided for that. Brown 1 I did say that God's death was irrelevant because it was. Just because I conceded that God's death was irrelevant that does not mean that I failed to refute the point made. I still argued based on morality and how we can be moral without God so whether or not God is dead, alive or non-existant, this had no relevance to my argument since we can be moral without God. Nietzche 2 I have explained multiple timesthat we do not need God for morality. Again, my opponent is just stating things. He says: "Moralism is a constant physical and ethical struggle against ourselves" Yet, he fails to explain how. Just stating that moralism is a struggle against ourselves is meaningless without evidence. How is inner - struggle worse than terrorism or murder? You have stated that it will outweigh other impacts but again you have failed to provide me any reason as to why I should believe this. Is inner struggle worse than terrorism? Brown 2 My opponent has gone back to making claims:A society of moralism won't ever address the problem of moralism, instead preferring to just moralize harder and shift the attention away from the problem. I do not see any sources to back up this claim. How can you know for certain that ever society of moralism wont address the problem of moralism. That is a huge claim that can only be satisfied by adequate source(s). Since I cannot address Brown 2 in any further detail I will just note that my opponent has tried to show how I misinterpreted it and just made an argument about animals being essential for our survival. However, whilst I have attempted to respond to every point made by my opponent they have completely dropped this argument and just said that it is irrelevant to their point. Brown 3 When my opponent claims that it is "game-over" for me because I failed to refute this point, they are forgetting that they have missed some very important points made by me. They have failed to refute the points regarding animals being essential for our survival. They have failed to directly resopnd to any of my points in R2 since they have only used quotes and very little of their rebuttals actually came from them. 10 Commandments God is not necessary for the 10 commandments to be a valid ethical system. Atheists do not believe in the Christian God, yet they choose not to murder and steal most of the time (this is the same for any group of people as stated in my previous round). WHY BE MORAL? Consider what the world would be like if there were no traffic rules at all. Would people be able to travel by automobiles, buses and other vehicles on the roadways if there were no traffic regulations? The answer should be obvious to all rational members of the human species. Without basic rules, no matter how much some would like to avoid them or break them, there would be chaos. The fact that some people break the rules is quite clearly and obviously not sufficient to do away with the rules. The rules are needed for transportation to take place. Why are moral rules needed? For example, why do humans need rules about keeping promises, telling the truth and private property? This answer should be fairly obvious. Without such rules people would not be able to live amongst other humans. People could not make plans, could not leave their belongings behind them wherever they went. We would not know who to trust and what to expect from others. Civilized, social life would not be possible. Without us being moral towards animals, this treatment will become a basic part of our lifestyle and civilisation will crumble. Conclusion To conclude this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate with me. This debate showed me a new perspective of why people choose to be against animal rights. This was not the path that I was expecting this debate to go on but nevertheless, this debate was still great fun to participate in. I believe that I have won this debate for a number of reasons and I would just like to quickly go over those here. My opponent chose to attempt to refute my arguments using the majority of his R2 arguments for quotes only. Since none of this was actually his content I do feel like I have spent this entire debate arguing with a number of different arguments created by a number of different people. I do not feel like I should lose this debate because I lost to people who weren't even writing this debate. Whilst, I credit my opponent for finding such good quotes and explaining them in detail, I do not feel like it is fair to use them to try and counter all of my arguments. None of these directly responded to my arguments, meaning that a number of them were dropped. Including a very important one regarding the extinction of animals having devestating effects on humans since they are essential for us to survive. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate and I would also like to thank voters and other debaters for reading this far into the debate. Sourceshttp://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk...;http://www.onegreenplanet.org...https://www.google.co.uk...