Animals should have basic rights.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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).
Pro failed to argue what this would look like or even why, he merely asserted circularly it should be so because it should. Whereas con leveraged such things as the meat industry to imply lost benefits for people if animals had proper rights, which is a harm without any shown benefit to counter it.
Arguments to Con for a couple of reasons. First, Pro did not answer the question about animals attacking each other which is a legitimate concern when considering their rights, because humans cannot do anything about it. The second reason is that Pro conceded the argument of owners feeding their livestock bad food, which would be unregulatable do to the mass size. The third and final reason is that Pro conceded that the food industry created because of livestock would inherently result in their death which is fundamentally a violation of basic rights.
Sources is tied because neither side used any sources.
S/G is tied because neither side had any glaring errors that diverted from their arguments
Conduct is tied because both sides were respectful to each other and neither side forfeited in any way.