Lunatic

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sah08hQ1AOGP2KKXderPFyP68jmhmziPkOuhDPsNeAI/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19aTIzwO30Ls0SnTtGuOupfnEz6958LXsif3QD1c6ZpI/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZLgXw4KigHHVShZ9hH3KgEW9M3Avq1co5rFcpVZrd0/edit?usp=sharing

Pro did the superior job defending his argument. The times of the man hearing the stabbing are in line with the times the women stated she saw the killing and the coroners death report. The time alignment was touched on by Con in his 1 rebuttal. Pro accurately points out that it makes no sense for a woman who normally wears glasses in court not to wear them the day she's in court as well. Con doesn't respond to further arguments in rounds 2 and 3 therefor forfeiting the debate.

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.