TheMatrix
October 4th, 2011, 01:05 AM
So this is the current Lincoln-Douglass Debate topic in the National Forensic League(in the US). And I thought we'd have our very own thread to do it ourselves. So let's try to take sides, be professional, etc etc.
Happy debating! :)
==============================
If justice is to be established, we must protect the rights of animals, I affirm the resolution: "Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights".
To clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions:
Animal rights is the idea that we give rights to animals.
Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
To further clarify the debate I offer the following observations:
Because we are evaluating whether or not animals have rights, my value is justice, which is a code of conduct that hinges upon rights. Although justice cannot be fully achieved, we must strive to achieve it. Thus, my value criterion is maximizing protection of animal rights to retain justice.
Contention 1: To exclude sentient non-human animals from our moral evaluations/calculations is "Speciesism."
Although you may not realise it, animals are also sentient. For example, when you call your dog, it appears happy. But when you yell or make seemingly malicious movements against it, it cowers away and appears to be sad. It is the same with virtually any sentient animal: whales, cats, etc.
Now you may argue that those animals aren't as intelligent as the average human. But that is irrelevant, as we don't deny the same rights to mentally-challanged people, correct? Therefore, it is only just and proper that we grant the same rights to animals as we do to a mentally challanged person who might have an intelligence level closer to that of an animal.
For this reason, I affirm.
=====================
One of my cases. I left out the good contentions, or else mine will all be taken by other teams and pre-refuted ;)
Happy debating! :)
==============================
If justice is to be established, we must protect the rights of animals, I affirm the resolution: "Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights".
To clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions:
Animal rights is the idea that we give rights to animals.
Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
To further clarify the debate I offer the following observations:
Because we are evaluating whether or not animals have rights, my value is justice, which is a code of conduct that hinges upon rights. Although justice cannot be fully achieved, we must strive to achieve it. Thus, my value criterion is maximizing protection of animal rights to retain justice.
Contention 1: To exclude sentient non-human animals from our moral evaluations/calculations is "Speciesism."
Although you may not realise it, animals are also sentient. For example, when you call your dog, it appears happy. But when you yell or make seemingly malicious movements against it, it cowers away and appears to be sad. It is the same with virtually any sentient animal: whales, cats, etc.
Now you may argue that those animals aren't as intelligent as the average human. But that is irrelevant, as we don't deny the same rights to mentally-challanged people, correct? Therefore, it is only just and proper that we grant the same rights to animals as we do to a mentally challanged person who might have an intelligence level closer to that of an animal.
For this reason, I affirm.
=====================
One of my cases. I left out the good contentions, or else mine will all be taken by other teams and pre-refuted ;)