Instigator / Pro
8
1486
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Animals should have basic rights.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

gugigor
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1526
rating
18
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 231 / 5,000

Animals are part of our society if they are pets or farmed animals, they contribute to it (although against their own will) therefor they should have basic rights, as anyone who contributes to society is given (or should be given).

Round 1
Pro
If we bring an animals into our society as a pet or to farm we are accountable for the animals well-being because they have become an involuntary member of society, we can't feed and protect wild animals, but we are responsible for these involuntary members of society and must give them basic rights such as: the right to food and water, and the right to happiness and freedom, also these animals benefit, and contribute to our society (though not by their own will), therefor they should enjoy some of the benefits if this.
This argument is for giving animals that are in our society basic rights, I'm not saying we have to feed all the wild animals.
Con
Pro contradicts himself. If we are not obliged to feed the animals, yet they have the right to food and water, this seems arbitrary. How are we going to implement this idea? And how can we care for "happiness" and "Freedom"? Nobody other than their owners can actually speak up against the problem. If we shut them in a house, how can we determine if this is similar to taking care of a child, rather than putting someone in prison? Determining "freedom" is incredibly ambiguous and near impossible to determine.
Round 2
Pro
Let me clarify: Animals in our society have the right to food and water, I'm not saying we need to feed wild animals, only that we need to treat animals in our society with the most basic rights of a member of society, I would prefer if people didn't force animals into being members of society but if they do than we are responsible for treating them as such. By freedom and happiness I mean that 1: Animals have the right not to be harmed, or violated, 2: To not be constrained significantly.
Con
Not constrained significantly is incredibly hard to define and enforce.

As for harmed or violated, what will we do about the food industry? How can we even shut it down? It earns millions to billions of dollars and would be near impossible to enact. Furthermore, would we also disallow animals to harm each other, since they are now members of society?
Round 3
Pro
I think there should be a very specific unmistakably clear charter of fundamental rights that can never be revoked that applies to both humans and animals who are members of society, I'm not saying that we should shut down the food industry right now, that would be next to impossible, although we should make sure that the animals are raised humanely, as the charter dictates, I'm not saying that all animals should be members of society, only that the ones who are involved in our society (farmed animals and pets) and effected by it, are members of it.
Con
It would be impossible to uphold these rights. How would we find owners accountable for not feeding their animals? Their animals certainly can't complain. Similarly, we can still feed them poor food and be extremely difficult to find out. Not to mention that Pro has not answered the question of allowing animals to kill other animals freely.
Round 4
Pro
They should have to be subject in certain restrictions on owning animals, to better find out when a person is abusing an animal, and then prosecute them, also you have a point, the charter should dictate that they must be fed food that is nutritious, healthy, and at least somewhat appetizing, I don't think animals should be held accountable to the extent that humans are considering that they are less intelligent, and don't choose to be members of society.
Con
if animals are less intelligent and cannot choose if they belong in society, why should we treat them as such and give them basic rights? It doesn't make sense. At least we encourage the average person to contribute to society through labor and work. We already give them "housing" and feed them what they need to survive. What more could you want? If you do not even punish them for "murder", how can they have rights to life?
Round 5
Pro
Animals don't choose to be part of our society, but we bring them into it against their own will, we are accountable for what we do, we should treat them like members of society because we have brought them into it and they are by all means affected by it.
Con
Come on, you would *force* them to enter human society? What kind of logic is that? Didn't you say you wanted their freedom to make their own choices? It seems kind of silly that you would put human standards on them. What next, allow them to vote for president? Make them pay taxes? There's a certain level where your logic gets too absurd. And remember my round 1 argument: no one has any obligation to actually protect the animal. There's no reason for us to give the animals basic rights.