As was already said, this argument wouldn't hold a thimble of water on its own, but with a properly organized animal rights K or similar you could make this work. You might get a win off shock value as I'm sure that there isn't a camp anywhere that prepped this.
Ultimately this is going to only function as a link back to the K as the definition doesn't specifically exclude plans that provide for people. At best you can argue a partial topicality and try to force a holistic interpretation of the resolution on you, but they will be able to work their way out of the issue by simply granting you that your definition doesn't cover their plan and providing a better definition to win the limits/ground debate. That's all a side show because the real battle is on the K side.