That society ought to recognize animal rights

As this is the last round, I will not be making new attacks against my opponent's case, but rather summarizing the round and defending my statements. While the debate may look muddled and confusing to people looking over the rounds or, heaven forbid, skimming the lengthy posts, there's a very clear and easy way to look at the round, and they all point to the negative winning this debate. Firstly, my opponent has yet to adequetly refute my argument about if contractarianism is not true, then moral skepticism follows, as if moral theories do not actually obligate us, then it only begs the question of why be moral or, to apply it to the debate and my opponent's case, why be responsible and this leads to moral skepticism, meaning that nothing can be morally obligatory and the resolution is automatically negated. My opponent tries to get out of this by saying that there are obligations that can exist outside of contractarianism, but these are the very things that are what skepticism questions why we do it. That would be like me saying "Because it's good" to the question "Why be good? ". This puts my opponent in the double bind of either conceding to the skepticism argument and the resolution is instantly negated, or admitting that contractarianism works and then we default to the dropped reasons why a contract between humans and animals is impossible (I know, my opponent said he didn't drop them, but he did and I will explain where and why in a minute). Secondly, because of the word "Ought" in the resolution, we are talking about why society has a MORAL OBLIGATION to recognize these rights. Therefore, it is on the affirmative to prove why society has the moral obligation to recognize animal rights. To do this, you would think that the affirmative would provide some ethical framework to establish how recognizing their rights is morally obligatory, as that would be required to prove the "why be moral" or "why is it obligatory" questions. My opponent has not done this. I am the only one providing some sort of ethical theory, under contractarianism (. http://plato.stanford.edu...). This means that even if you're buying all of my opponent's refutations to it and think that contractarianism stinks, you have to look to it simply on a lack of alternatives. There's literally no other way provided by either myself or my opponent to evaluate the round. My opponent's sole prayer of proving a moral obligation is his point about being responsible for other's wellbeing or something like that, but he never proves a) why this creates a moral obligation or b) why we have to be responsible. Insofar as he's failed to prove this, responsibility can be viewed, at best, as a system to prove why it is permissible to give animals rights. However, as the resolution is asking us to prove a moral obligation, not permissibility, my opponent cannot, I repeat CANNOT, affirm the resolution. This leaves the only option in the round is voting with the negative position, as I'm best upholding my burden of proof. Thirdly, my opponent has yet to directly address my arguments as to why a contract between humans and animals is not possible. He's tried to dance around it by saying how it applies to infants, and should thusly apply to animals or that implicit consent can be given instead of explicit consent. Yet my opponent has NOT addressed the three points under my argument that contracts must be based off of mutual benefit, and the three points are as to why a contract between humans and animals would not be of mutual benefit. He never responded to this. The only part of contractarianism that he responded to was my first argument (implicit consent vs. explicit consent) and contracts in general (all of his other arguments). He never touched these arguments throughout the entire round. This means that if you're looking to contractarianism at all, for whatever reason, then you negate the resolution since a contract with humans and animals would not work and could not happen. As such, the debate breaks down very easily for voters to vote con.1) You can negate off of contractarianism since it's the only provided theory to justify what morality is and why we have to be moral or responsible and off of the reasons why a contract between humans and animals would not work and could not happen.2) If you buy my opponent's arguments against contractarianism, though, then you negate off of the moral skepticism point that since there is no other ethical theory provided, that there is no reason to be moral and there's no reason why we should act in a moral, responsible manner, and thus leads to skepticism, where there can be no moral obligations, meaning the resolution is a priori negated.3) At the bare minimum, though, you negate off of a risk of offense and a failure to uphold the pro's burden of proof since my opponent has yet to provide a criteria for establishing moral obligation. My opponent never established why being responsible means we have an obligation, nor why we have to be responsible in the first place, meaning he cannot garner an obligation off of the argument. This means you literally cannot affirm the resolution, and the only option left is to negate.