Debate - Round 1

[DeSalvionjr]

I would like to vote on animal rights. I would be willing to judge assuming its not animal rights. Plus, I may have some suggestions for future topics.

[Aelphaeis]

I'd be willing to play.

I will join or judge, as is my civic duty.

Both of you need to vote on a topic.

[Aelphaeis]

~~~ Signed up closed ~~~
Round will end on : 2300h - 08/11/2010
Please note that you do not need to send me the complete draft. Whatever is the latest draft sent to me by the team will be the draft that I use for the argument. Better to submit an incomplete draft 5 hours early than a perfect argument 5 minutes late because I will not accept it if its late, if there are any questions you are free to ask here or private message me. I will check daily.

[Aelphaeis]

I just wanted to do a vote to see all who were in favor to increase the duration of the phases mid-game. The proposed duration increase would effective raise the phases from 2 days to 4 days. Please post or send me a PM containing your vote pertaining to this request.

[TheGr8UNKy]

I just wanted to do a vote to see all who were in favor to increase the duration of the phases mid-game. The proposed duration increase would effective raise the phases from 2 days to 4 days. Please post or send me a PM containing your vote pertaining to this request.

I would like this. I've been busy and haven't been able to be on much lately. More time would definitely help.

[Aelphaeis]

I want to apologize as I haven't been present to answer questions or post anything after the last two days due to personal issues.

Furthermore, this is an official post to say that the round duration had been extended by the two days via a majority vote. Therefore the round would end @2300h on 08/11/2011 (2 hours from now).

I had intended to post that earlier but the personal issue had caught me a little bit after I had asked people to extend the rounds.

[Aelphaeis]

Okay. People have been busy, so it's been delayed, but here are the opening arguments of both teams.

Affirmative:

Non human animals should have rights. (supporting motion)

*definition of non human animal evolves over time, to deny rights or the possibility of rights results in a decision that benefits the status quo. Slavery would not have been abolished had a status quo decision been made on this topic hundreds of years ago.

A decision to grant rights is grounded in the status quo and the existing power structure of the moment. Note that rights are "granted' - they are gracefully extended from those in power to those deemed worthy in that time of sharing in the power. For most of the people reading this thread, power in your country in history was probably controlled by white men. The extension of that power - however incompletely - to other races and genders was possible because of the mobilization of people demanding change. Note that our societies do not grant equal rights to teenagers or children, for example. Children and teenagers do not protest in large numbers and do not vote in elections, so they can be marginalized in terms of participating in existing power structures. In this way, outside of Narnia, we can never expect to see an uprising of the animals in a protest to claim their due rights. It's not going to happen. So if we care about animals, we need to grant them rights proactively.

An addendum to this position is the observation that definition of 'non-human animal' has changed over time. Hundreds of years ago, people would have claimed that people of darker skinned race were 'non-human animals' and indeed, these people were denied rights as a result. Remind me again how much of a % of a human the US Constitution claims Black people are? Some of the uglier moments in our history are connected to a failure to extend rights proactively to the oppressed or voiceless.

*non human animals already have rights

*this is not a question for humans to finesse. the right animals should have is not to have their rights determined and controlled by humans.

Negative:

As the question defines no parameters for the term "rights," and no animal rights association seems to agree on what exactly these "rights" should entail, we have chosen to define them according to United Nations? stipulations for human beings:

The right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated.
The right to life.
The right to liberty and freedom of movement.
The right to equality before the law.
The right to presumption of innocence.
The right to appeal a conviction.
The right to be recognized as a person before the law.
The right to privacy.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Freedom of assembly and association.

Animals lack means of illegible verbal communication with humans, therefore, they are unable to seek legal recourse or appear in a court of law. Allowing animals freedom of movement and of association poses direct threats to human safety as they lack the cognitive ability to reason the consequences of their actions. As animals lack the ability to exercise these rights and fulfill the obligations of citizenship to a country that would uphold them, we argue that animals do not have formal rights. This is not to condone their mistreatment by human beings, but to demonstrate that an animal cannot apply his or her freedoms within the framework human judicial proceedings.

Furthermore, the implications of giving full rights to animals would cause many ill-effects for human beings. Recent advances in medical science, including the regeneration of organs and advances in cancer treatment have been made possible by animal testing. Species such as rats that grow and age faster than humans demonstrate quicker responses to treatments than a human test subject would do. Lack of reason and forethought allows animals to remain calmer than human subjects under similar psychological conditions, though they do experience pain.

Providing animals with equal rights to humans would also result in the loss of many key industries including meat and dairy farming, household pet, equine industries and zoos. These industries take animal willingness for granted. If rights were granted, the question of what to do with all of these animals also arises. Who supports the millions of household and domesticated animals if their effectual slavery becomes illegal? Where do we deposit the semi-domesticated zoo animals that pose a danger to human beings if allowed to run free but who have lost the ability to hunt for themselves? The answer does not lie in giving these animals rights they cannot exercise themselves, but in placing limits on human right to animal exploitation.



*Important*

Both Gr8UNKy and jorbaud of the affirmative team have said that they might not be interested in playing anymore due to time constraints and the dedication that this game requires. Could everyone post whether they still want to continue playing? If so, we'll take a recount and see what to do with the teams from that point onward.

The next round, if this game will continue, will be the negative's rebuttal against the affirmative's case.

Thank you.

[Boleslav]

When I sent these by PM, I thought I was sending rough drafts, not the final version. So I have made one of the statements a bit tidier.

*definition of non human animal evolves over time, to deny rights or the possibility of rights results in a decision that benefits the status quo. Slavery would not have been abolished had a status quo decision been made on this topic hundreds of years ago.

A decision to grant rights is grounded in the status quo and the existing power structure of the moment. Note that rights are "granted' - they are gracefully extended from those in power to those deemed worthy in that time of sharing in the power. For most of the people reading this thread, power in your country in history was probably controlled by white men. The extension of that power - however incompletely - to other races and genders was possible because of the mobilization of people demanding change. Note that our societies do not grant equal rights to teenagers or children, for example. Children and teenagers do not protest in large numbers and do not vote in elections, so they can be marginalized in terms of participating in existing power structures. In this way, outside of Narnia, we can never expect to see an uprising of the animals in a protest to claim their due rights. It's not going to happen. So if we care about animals, we need to grant them rights proactively.

An addendum to this position is the observation that definition of 'non-human animal' has changed over time. Hundreds of years ago, people would have claimed that people of darker skinned race were 'non-human animals' and indeed, these people were denied rights as a result. Remind me again how much of a % of a human the US Constitution claims Black people are? Some of the uglier moments in our history are connected to a failure to extend rights proactively to the oppressed or voiceless.

*non human animals already have rights

Nothing to add here.

*this is not a question for humans to finesse. the right animals should have is not to have their rights determined and controlled by humans.

Nothing to add here either.

[Aisukaze]

I'll still play, but I think the style of this debate might be too structured for the forums. Instead formal response times and rebuttals maybe we could just assign teams and then let those people who sign up for it free-fight? It might also help to make teams more fluid ... so instead of 3 people, each team is free to recruit / peer pressure whoever they want into helping them make the argument.

You have some valid points. D: I think this game could be refined a bit too to better fit this forum community.

When I sent these by PM, I thought I was sending rough drafts, not the final version. So I have made one of the statements a bit tidier.



A decision to grant rights is grounded in the status quo and the existing power structure of the moment. Note that rights are "granted' - they are gracefully extended from those in power to those deemed worthy in that time of sharing in the power. For most of the people reading this thread, power in your country in history was probably controlled by white men. The extension of that power - however incompletely - to other races and genders was possible because of the mobilization of people demanding change. Note that our societies do not grant equal rights to teenagers or children, for example. Children and teenagers do not protest in large numbers and do not vote in elections, so they can be marginalized in terms of participating in existing power structures. In this way, outside of Narnia, we can never expect to see an uprising of the animals in a protest to claim their due rights. It's not going to happen. So if we care about animals, we need to grant them rights proactively.

An addendum to this position is the observation that definition of 'non-human animal' has changed over time. Hundreds of years ago, people would have claimed that people of darker skinned race were 'non-human animals' and indeed, these people were denied rights as a result. Remind me again how much of a % of a human the US Constitution claims Black people are? Some of the uglier moments in our history are connected to a failure to extend rights proactively to the oppressed or voiceless.



Nothing to add here.



Nothing to add here either.

Thanks for the additions. About the draft thing, wasn't the deadline like 2 days ago? So I assumed it was the final, sorry.

I'm guessing that the teams don't want to continue the game though? D: Since no one else has replied.

[Skirata]

I wish to continue. I debate to win.