Animals should not have rights
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,500
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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?
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.
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
Oh thanks man. Hope to be debating with you soon!
I enjoyed it myself, I must say I enjoy your debate topics.
Good debate Trent. Well done!
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
we should treat animals kindly but they havent got rights b no one does rights are made up like the boogey man
you can treat animals kindly without giving them rights, and btw rights dont exist
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.
Np
Thanks for the vote.
thoroughly enjoyed the debate, the debate topic, and the shorter character limit, hope to see more debates from you in the future.