Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rambo

Animal Rights

Recommended Posts

yeah cause is always better to kill hundreds of animals rather than one human............but if u block it out right it might work.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what happens if i get a card that says all the animals will catch a virus making them deadly to human consumption leaveing humans alone to only eat veggies........what then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you would have a card, that says that some non-existant virus would come about. Big deal. Welcome to Debate Land. Its the only place that your card will matter.

 

EDIT: As a side note: you consume thousands of dust mites every time you take a breath. Are you eating amimals? I think so.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats whole argument is random even if that card wouldn't hurt u the whole argument is crap....welcome to debate land where we debate about real stuff not eating everything that walks until they are exstinct.u have to know that this would never hold up in a real round..i mean come on

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hang'in With Special Agent Dale Cooper
WRONG!! i beleive that you seriously need to re-evalute your view on things, or actualy evaluate it at all would be a good step.

 

WRONG! i believe that you need to stop reading moronic bullshit

 

I am perfectly fine with my current view on things.

 

How so? We currently treat a group of lifeforms in a grossly exploitative and unfair manner. Just as we now look back on the notion a black inferiority as rediculous (as it is), we will one day look back on the notion of animal inferiority as similar lunacy.

 

Right, except blacks were humans and animals aren't. What is wrong with animal inferiority? I mean, they are, you know.

 

thats whole argument is random even if that card wouldn't hurt u the whole argument is crap....welcome to debate land where we debate about real stuff not eating everything that walks until they are exstinct.u have to know that this would never hold up in a real round..i mean come on

 

 

hahaha i love debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one thing that animals don't, this is just off the top of my head: Culture. I mean, sure, animals have their little societies (well, some), but I think it'd be a stretch to say that animals have a culture like we do.

 

And would the person who runs this case actually advocate EQUAL rights between animals and humans? I agree that animal mistreatment isn't good, but to go as far as saying that they are our equals, no. No way. And as has been said, when you give animals rights, what's next? Trees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some responsible mod needs to move this to the nondebate debates forum now that all of us agree this case is ass-bad, regardless of real-world moral questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some responsible mod needs to move this to the nondebate debates forum now that all of us agree this case is ass-bad, regardless of real-world moral questions.
How about you don't tell me how to do my job?

The thread stays, not only because there are already numerous ones in the NDD forum that are specifically geared toward the ethical side of things, but also because the discussion revolves around reasons (not) to run this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats whole argument is random even if that card wouldn't hurt u the whole argument is crap....welcome to debate land where we debate about real stuff not eating everything that walks until they are exstinct.u have to know that this would never hold up in a real round..i mean come on

And I seriously hope that you don't belive that what you do in a debate round really changes anything outside it. Just because you can get a judge to vote for you doesn't mean what you got them to vote on

a) is right

B) would ever happen

We have one thing that animals don't, this is just off the top of my head: Culture. I mean, sure, animals have their little societies (well, some), but I think it'd be a stretch to say that animals have a culture like we do.

 

And would the person who runs this case actually advocate EQUAL rights between animals and humans? I agree that animal mistreatment isn't good, but to go as far as saying that they are our equals, no. No way. And as has been said, when you give animals rights, what's next? Trees?

This reminds me a lot of that case somebody wrote last year. Give whales rights. It always fell apart when they realized that whales could never actually represent themselves in court or communicate well enough to pettition for the use of the rights that they might be given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay.yeah thats right...but please don't tell me that u actually think that people will become so stuipd..that they'd revert to just eating only animals...come on...the 21st century was suppose to be for flyin cars..not eating Fido when we run out of gorilla meat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about you don't tell me how to do my job?

The thread stays, not only because there are already numerous ones in the NDD forum that are specifically geared toward the ethical side of things, but also because the discussion revolves around reasons (not) to run this case.

 

Sorry, dude. I didn't mean any offense by it, it just seemed that the thread had kind of degenerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay.yeah thats right...but please don't tell me that u actually think that people will become so stuipd..that they'd revert to just eating only animals...come on...the 21st century was suppose to be for flyin cars..not eating Fido when we run out of gorilla meat

 

Exactly, think a little reasonably. In what possible world would mankind ever resort to eating ONLY animals? Such a world does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first thing i have to say is: this forum was supposed to be about animal testing...not eating animals

 

We have one thing that animals don't, this is just off the top of my head: Culture. I mean, sure, animals have their little societies (well, some), but I think it'd be a stretch to say that animals have a culture like we do.

 

 

1. elephants burrry there dead

2. what is your defintion of culture?

3. we are considered animals scientifically and we have culture.

 

now here are some things we have in common:

1. we can both experience pain

2. we both have the same basic senses

3. we both have conciousness

4. animals share empathy for eachother... there was an expirement preformed on monkeys where they had 2 monkeys and food infront of them, when one monkey would reach for the food the other one would be electrically shocked and the monkey's wouldnt shock eachother and went for several days without eating in order to spare eachother from pain... is that not empathy?

 

"the question is not, can they reason? nor can they talk? but, can they suffer?" -jeremy bentham

 

And would the person who runs this case actually advocate EQUAL rights between animals and humans? I agree that animal mistreatment isn't good, but to go as far as saying that they are our equals, no. No way. And as has been said, when you give animals rights, what's next? Trees?

 

if you ask any vegetarain/vegan they most likely will not advocate that animals should have equal rights... i realize that they can't hold a job or have a house... but the thing i defintitely will advocate is that animals have an equal right to LIFE and to NOT BE TORTURED. i realize that animals aren't as mentally capable, but would you eat a mentaly retarted human? or spray perfume in his/her eyes just to see how much it hurts? if you spray perfume on a tree it wont cry or shudder or try to bite you... trees dont have brains or centeral nervous systems and how many people have you heard advocate tree rights??? by saying things like "when you give animals rights, what's next? Trees?" you are just throwing up a sheild to protect your ways. that is one of the most rediculous statements in this thread

 

 

And I seriously hope that you don't belive that what you do in a debate round really changes anything outside it. Just because you can get a judge to vote for you doesn't mean what you got them to vote on

a) is right

B) would ever happen

 

caleb, the truth can change a person, do you know how many people i have helped become vegan/vegitarian? so far, at least 15, the other day a girl came up to me in the hall and told me that she decided to become a vegitarian after i had shown her some literature last year. that is in real world, if you present the facts well, you might not even win the round, but im sure you could get a judge or oponents thinking afterwords.

 

 

This reminds me a lot of that case somebody wrote last year. Give whales rights. It always fell apart when they realized that whales could never actually represent themselves in court or communicate well enough to pettition for the use of the rights that they might be given.

 

no shit dumb ass, that is why some people feel morally obligated to represent them

 

WRONG! i believe that you need to stop reading moronic bullshit

 

I am perfectly fine with my current view on things.

 

Right, except blacks were humans and animals aren't. What is wrong with animal inferiority? I mean, they are, you know.

 

they kritiks are the only part that is moronic bullshit... the real philosophy is a LOT different than we twist it to link, so before you knock it, read teh book

you can keep your views, some people just dont appreciate shallow postings.

 

well, back then im sure some people would have dis-agreed with you and said blacks were less than human. animals might be mentally and physically inferior but that dosent mean its right for us to torture them.

 

what happens if i get a card that says all the animals will catch a virus making them deadly to human consumption leaveing humans alone to only eat veggies........what then.

that makes tons of sense... mad cow disease??? im sure you could find a card on it.

 

Consumption of animals is a requirement for the survival of humanity.

 

Tara: As an advocate of Malthus you should recognize that at one point the planet would cease to be capable of producing sufficient green stuff to be eaten. Producing enough beans and whatnot to provide the population with protien is hardly possible now. The rise of farming caused large ammounts of deforestation and habitat destruction. Essentially, for the alternative to the consumption of animals to take place, either more habitat for the animals would have to be destroied or urban human habitat would have to be destroied. Either way down the road, you end up killing off somebody.

 

1. consumption of animals is not a requirment for humanity. ive been a vegitarian for 2 years and im healthy, its possible... there are some people who ahve been vegitarians their whole lives

 

2. we are not talking malthus here... we can talk about it again in class... its refreshing to get kicked out of class so we can go somewhere else and argue.

 

NOW im just gonna list several reasons why vegitarianism is good for the planet and everyone:

 

1. it takes 12 pounds of plants to make 1 pound of your hamburger

2. the other 11 pounds are made into excriment wich pollutes the water, and the earth.

3. those 11 pounds could be fed instead to directly to the hunger... this would be a huge ass surplus of food and it could feed the hungry...

4. 12 acres of rain forest are cut down each day for land to grow animals on

5. if we weren't feeding that 12/1 pounds of food to animals we wouldnt need as much food, thus eliminating the need to expand crop space into forests

6. now we dont have to cut down the forest for animal space either

7. you cant get mad cow disease if you arent eating cow

8. red meat=heart disease; its been proven that becoming vegitarian actually decreases your chances of getting it

9. 2% of vegitarians are obese and 45%(depending on which study you look at maybe more) of the general american public are obese.

 

i cant think of anything else right off the top of myhead right now, and if you dont beleive me on these facts ill give you the source and you can look yourself.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if animals have the right to live, what happens if an animal kills another animal? Natural response, right? Well, as you said, scientifically we are animals, and because of our anatomy (aka, teeth specifically) we have evolved to eat animals. Also, what happens when animals get the rights you propose? Does that mean that killing bugs becomes wrong? I mean, when these animals get these rights, there have to be penalties if they are breached, so what happens if someone steps on a bug?

 

My definition of culture: The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

Would I eat a mentally retarded human? Are you equating a mentally retarded human to AN ANIMAL?! Why? Also, yes, animals have many of the traits you describe, but we still have things like conscience, morals, the culture that I talk about also applies. Not to mention, for this case to solve in the sense of animal rights, you better be able to solve for all the polution that gets into the ocean while still being topical.

 

By no means are any of us saying that animals shouldn't have rights like living, or that animal testing is right, but it just can't work under next year's topic. And what do you mean "my ways"? I'm just saying that when a concession that animals, and yes, by your standards, ALL animals have rights to live, it will become easier for people to get sillier things passed. Not to mention, I think we have bigger problems within our species that are topical and relevent to this topic rather than animal testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the question is not, can they reason? nor can they talk? but, can they suffer?" -jeremy bentham

 

No warrants. Most classical philosophers would disagree. Culture is based on intellect, not the ability to suffer. We have no way of telling that animals feel pain, only that they exhibit responses to certain stimuli that look similar to those exhibitted by humans when in pain.

 

The Bentham quote is overused and unconvincing; don't use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the quote, you still have to weigh human suffering vs. animal suffering, and at that point, it is too easy to get the judge, who WILL be a human to vote that animal suffering is worse.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying animals have no right to live or anything like that, I'm just saying that with next year's resolution, this case is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure some people will argue some form of a critique centered on animal rights. But it's just something you should block out generically from backfiles. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthro kritikal--screw the postfiat plane.

really, this could be some of the realest, biggest impx next yr, if run right......fuck fiat and the res...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the search function. There was already a thread, in this forum, identical to this one. http://cross-x.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=973345

 

 

And:

 

Unfortunately, as was already mentioned, the USFG does not regard animals as sentient entities, and thus they do not gain the rights we homo sapiens do.

The constitution, the basis of our governmental system, states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In a legal sense, "people" refers to humyn beings; the USFG has never abridged a non-humyn's right against search + seizure without probable cause, because non-humyns were never given those rights in the first place. Sorry, kids, it ain't topical.

At best, you would be hella extra-topical, because you would have to pass a provision giving non-humyns the same rights we enjoy. All of your advantages would clearly stem from this extra-topical portion of plan, giving any halfway decent negative a very clear abuse story.

And, no, the answer to having a non-topical case is not "kritik T." Rather than fighting a losing war, just give in and run something topical, eh? I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to kritik topicality every aff round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is addressing my question. Topic papers are saying the resolution is aimed at GTMO and post 9-11 civil. lib. It never mentions anything about animal lib. even if the gov't did consider animals or whatever, would there be a topicality problem with running such a "off topic" aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is addressing my question. Topic papers are saying the resolution is aimed at GTMO and post 9-11 civil. lib. It never mentions anything about animal lib. even if the gov't did consider animals or whatever, would there be a topicality problem with running such a "off topic" aff?

 

Tommy, assuming you can indeed read, read the post prior to your reply. Wiley already spelled it out pretty clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...