Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

Animals should not have rights

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Trent0405
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Nature
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,500
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
Animals - Domestic animals such as dogs or cats, and farm animals such as sheep or cattle
Rights - Guarantee of safe handling
In other words, should we treat animals with care and respect?
Round 1
Published:
Hello Trent! Thank you for accepting this quite short debate. Let's get right into it.

Animals should not have right because of 2 reasons (1 reason this round, other one next round). Follow my words...

I. Animals are all the same

What do I mean by this? Animals are animals. Dogs are the same as sheep, are the same as ants. It just so happens to be that dogs are more active than ants, but none the less, are still animals. Here's an example. We kill rats right? They're annoying, and they're small and easy to kill. But they do actually have emotion. Dogs on the other hand are rats, but bigger and more active. Difference? Not much.

My point is, it's all about the perspective. The cuter something is, the more emotion we invest in it, even if those two are the same. This phenomenon has actually been well documented several times. You can observe this in the real world by examining different countries. Primarily in the East, animals aren't cared for, but in the West, animals are cared for. This proves my point of how it's all about the way you see things.

In conclusion, dogs and cattle and others are all the same things, animals. It's just how we persevere them. But we shouldn't let our emotional judgement affect the real world. Thank you and good luck!

Published:
Animals should not have rights=animals shouldn't ever be guaranteed safe handling.

Rats are menaces to society, costing the U.S $1,000,000,000. Dogs aren't, if killing animals is for the public good it's fine to some extent(look at cows), I think utilitarianism gets a lot right here. If you believe what you say, than we should be allowed to torture dogs or cows though. If we should prohibit torturing these animals, that would mean guaranteeing them some degree of safe handling, and therefore they have some rights. You say in the east animals aren't cared for, but they still have some rights because they're guaranteed some safe handling and that's backed up by law.

Even animals we kill for the public good have some guarantee of safe handling. If we are killing animals for the public good we ought to grant them some degree of safe handling though, it is immoral to unnecessarily harm animals. We ought to do what supports the public good as well, and unnecessarily harming animals doesn't do so, quite the opposite actually. Is it bad to boil lobsters alive? Yes, because there are easy free ways to avoid the suffering, and lobsters don't harm the public good. Is it bad for dogs to be boiled alive, yes, because the suffering is not for the public good. If my opponent concedes that we ought not boil dogs alive, then he must hold that we ought to guarantee some degree of safe handling, giving animals some rights.

not giving animals rights would cause civil unrest, knowing their neighbour could legally kill their dog would cause unrest.
Round 2
Published:
Hello again and thanks for responding. Let's jump right into this.

Clash

Rats are menaces to society ... Dogs aren't
Okay, so A is bad, and B is not. So you're saying that B should be prioritized just because you're juxtaposing it?

if killing animals is for the public good ...
Wait, who said we're killing animals? If animals don't have rights, that doesn't mean everyone will to kill them. That means if the animal is being mistreated, then nothing will be done.

... civil unrest, knowing their neighbour could legally kill their dog
We are too emotionally attached to these animals, and we must let go. In fact, most of your speech is based on emotion, with no concrete backing.



II. Animal rights have no real benefit to the society as a whole

Now let's move on and talk about the other half of the coin. Farm animals. Mistreating farm animals are actually beneficial for us. We can increase our capacity and storage for farm animals if we "mistreat" them. I will still buy meat from the grocery store regardless of the condition of the animals, and if the farmer can cram more animals in one space, then he can sell more meat, and make a better profit. Yes, certain types of animals produce better product if they are treated with care, but that's the exception. You talked about how it's "[unnecessary to] harm animals", but if the farmer profits, then it could be beneficial.


Well, that's all from me in this debate. I thank you once again for joining me, and good luck in your next round!
Published:
Wait, who said we're killing animals? If animals don't have rights, that doesn't mean everyone will to kill them. That means if the animal is being mistreated, then nothing will be done.
Or harming would work too for my argument. To say that doesn't mean everyone will want to kill them is faulty, humans torture/kill animals for little to no reason.

We are too emotionally attached to these animals
My point was people are emotionally attached to these animals and that will cause unrest, even if you state that the attachment ought not be there, it still exists and will harm society.

Animal rights have no real benefit to the society as a whole
I gave a reason in R1 with my civil unrest point. No animal rights is bad.

The rest of my opponent's argument neglects the immorality of grossly mistreating animals, the public good and morality ought to exist in a balance, a great deal of a species greatness is virtuosity while prospering. We see this today, countries with the best animal rights have some of the highest average wealth per person. So in practice these great societies know that virtuosity matters.

Increase Capacity/Profits

This is similar to arguing for slavery frankly, I'd presume my opponent hates slavery, but if profit is all that matter why not bring back slavery? What about boiling dogs alive for no reason, there is no public good and it's immoral obviously, my opponent never addressed this vital point of my case, I have proven that animal rights are most present in wealthy nations and that no animal rights cause civil unrest.
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Oh thanks man. Hope to be debating with you soon!
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I enjoyed it myself, I must say I enjoy your debate topics.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Trent0405
Good debate Trent. Well done!
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Trent0405
I would totally be down for this debate some day. People are very biased against my position and would think I was psycho, though lol
#7
Added:
we should treat animals kindly but they havent got rights b no one does rights are made up like the boogey man
#6
Added:
you can treat animals kindly without giving them rights, and btw rights dont exist
#5
Added:
--> @SupaDudz, @Trent0405
Trent, thank you for this debate. It was quite short alas but still a good and fun one. I do hope to be seeing you soon.
Supa, thank you for your vote. This was quite a short debate so there wasn't really much space to write or details to judge, but thank you for your insight anyway.
Instigator
#4
Added:
Np
#3
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
Thanks for the vote.
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
thoroughly enjoyed the debate, the debate topic, and the shorter character limit, hope to see more debates from you in the future.
Contender
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments to Con, for showing the negative benefits of removing the rights of animals. Pro talks about how we treat animals differently based on looks. His argument is more about flawed human perception then an argument that demonstrates why animals shouldn't have rights. Con Demonstrates the need for the safe handling of some animals, and how rats and dogs impact on human sanctity is why their is a justifiable difference in the way we treat animals. Sources to Con because Pro doesn't explain how his sources are directly related to his arguments. I can infer that the ones demonstrating empathy from rats is used to distinguish that some animals that intelligent are unjustly treated differently, but that doesn't support his argument. If anything it seems to work against his case, demonstrating that animals have more human like traits =/= Not giving them rights at all? I feel con was the superior debater.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
ARGS to CON: I think the case is pretty strong for PRO in this debate and I think he makes a good point, but the refute by CON is masterly done and treated. I think CON takes arguments in the rebuttals. There was no BoP to go by in R1 other than, all animals are equal. The CON debater refutes this well enough. The R2 rebuttals by PRO were extremely weak given this was a 2 round debate, and I think there needed to be more contestion with the CON argument itself. I think CON wins.
SOURCE to CON: Con used no sources in R2 and I think that is bad policy for a rebutal. PRO used sources that contested the point at hand. It does come down to the sense that the sources were apparent and out valued PRO's 3 sources used in the debate.
Everything else was tie. Nothing was either in bad conduct and no glaring S&G issues
Good debate