args

Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

Rebuttals to my opponents opening arguments: 1). "There is no reason to exclude animals from the concept of equality." This point Pro has made isn't advancing his argument substantially. It may be slightly similar to proving a negative. "Why not?" BoP is shared, but this isn't bringing proof to the discussion at hand. This is not showing why animals deserve the same rights as humans. "During the last few centuries, especially in the Western world, the line has been moved further and further, to incorporate groups that used to fall on the wrong side." While this may be true, all examples of extended rights have been for humans, not animals. Secondly, this is an "Appeal to Tradition," that if we have done it in the past, and it has worked before, it will be good this time around. This a fallacy. [1]. Pro still has yet to explain why animals deserve to have equal rights to humans, but merely asserted that "why not?" "The obvious question now is, why should the line be drawn at the point where our species ends?" That certainly is the question Pro, please explain why they deserve the rights, beyond this. Expand. Convey why it shouldn't be drawn at species. Why not, is not an argument, nor is it a reason. "As we, the human species, learn more about nonhuman animals, it becomes clearer and clearer how much their cognitive capabilities have been underestimated." Here we are. Pro has brought forth a few reasons. I'll summarize all of point one: Animals should be included because there is no reason not to. Why should we draw the line at one species? Non-human animals have shown more intelligent that previously thought, so that means we should include them into human rights. Pro also mentioned a few aspects such as social behavior, communication, and problem solving as some of the abilities animals are capable of performing. Animals are certainly not stupid or dumb, they can be very smart. They are all complex and wonderful creatures, but are nowhere near the complexity, intelligence and capabilities of humans. 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. With that established, I can advance in my explanation and refutation. We are one species, we don't kill each other within our own species for survival reasons. That is why we have not included other species into our formation of rights. In nature, species kill other species for survival purposes and out of instinct. We see lions killing different animals for food. Bugs kill different bugs, birds kill different birds and rodents for food. Everywhere we look we see Intra and Inter-specific competition. [2]. 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? Just like Pro has offered that we animals should have rights just because "why not?" I can likewise say that, it's natural for species to eat other species, so "why not?" 2.) "Using animals as commodities is not only unethical, but unnecessary." If we were to use this as a basis for rights and equality, we would quickly confront many questions and contradictions among Pros stance. We have already been aware of the difference between species and interspecific killing. Pro is claiming that all animal are the same and deserve equal rights. Should we be policing the killing between two animals, human or not? 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? Pro will likely counter with that eating meat is not a necessity for us. There are in fact omnivorous animals in nature, that also don't need meat to survive. [3]. Bears are exemplify my point. Some bear's diets range from almost entirely herbivorous to entirely carnivorous. 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. It is not unethical to use animals as commodities, or for survival, because it is a component of nature. It may not always be necessary to be eating meat, but it is not unethical, and since its not unethical to do so, the necessity aspect becomes irrelivant and it becomes a preference whether we could eat meat or eat herbivorously. Rebuttals to opponents comments on my arguments: 1.) "Con seems to look at the question solely from a US standpoint. Even though I am European, I do not mind rebutting US-specific arguments, because I am well aware of how the US animal industry works." 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. "This, however, does not mean that rights cannot be considered universal, objective or independent from man." This is true, there is no reason they can't be universal, but that doesn't mean that they are universal. We cannot establish objective rights for humans. They are subjective to the world. Not every nation agrees on rights, whether they should be objective or not. How are we to establish animals rights, without even finding a common ground for human rights. It's even controversial within certain countries. Abortion is considered wrong by some, but right to others. "The sanctity of life and the right to life are commonly accepted principles. To someone who accepts them, it should be irrelevant whether in parts of the world people are killing babies or anything else. If one accepts the principle(s), it would be contradictory to justify killing by appealing to socities that do not follow said principle(s)." I wasn't attempting to justify killing babies, but I was showing how rights aren't as absolute as they may seem. "Based on the claim that rights are given to those with the ability to be "beneficial" and to "talk, walk and contribute", we should not give rights to babies. You might say that babies will grow up to be contributing members of society (although not all of them will), but what about severely disabled persons who will never be able to "talk, walk [or] contribute". Is it okay to abuse and kill these individuals?" You have said so yourself that babies will grow up and be capable of greater things than they initially have. Although you did mention disabled people. Those people are in fact exceptions, because it isn't the norm. They 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. Just because some are unfortunate to have these disabilities doesn't make it a baseline. "Again, appealing to possible negative effects on the US economy is not a valid justification for destroying other societies and individuals. However, for the sake of argument, I will treat it as one for the rest of rebuttal 2." Animals gaining rights would substantially affect our economy and individuals directly. Likewise we have affects on animals. My argument is a mirror to Pro's. 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? "If people did not consume animal products, they would consume something else: plant-based products. In order to produce these products, countless workers would be employed (in positions where, perhaps, annual turnover rates would not exceed 100 %, which they do in poultry plants. [4] Guess why.). In other words, there would be little to no loss to employment. The same applies to the money. People would still need to buy groceries, and they would pay for them. (Side note: I never thought I would hear wealth inequality (i.e. the fact that Perdue Farms gets 6 billion dollars a year whereas local family farmers get little to none) used as an argument against animal rights.)" 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. This is the largest agricultural section of a country with over 300 million citizens, Pro has gravely underestimated the negative affects this would entail onto people. Would this be a moral thing to do? This society will be immensely affected by animal rights, what gives animals the ability to do that? 3.) pro claims that food and revenue will be replaced, not quite to 100% though. One thing that will not be replaced is the 60 billion in revenue a year from animal feed production. [4]. 60 billion a year in revenue would disappear. This would be a largely negative affect on large amounts of people and thousands of companies. Citations: [1]. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4]. http://www.statista.com...