Instigator / Pro
4
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1592

Animals should not have rights

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Trent0405
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1711
rating
33
debates
84.85%
won
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?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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