CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
13
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:21
Arguments:18
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (6)
 
 Disagree (10)

Debate Creator

Idiotobx914(1341) pic



"Animal Rights" is a Joke

Link to video if embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odgldsDVDis

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO AHEAD




Agree

Side Score: 8
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 13
3 points

There is one, and only one law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. You're either food, or you aren't. Animals have no rights. That does not mean it's OK to deliberately mistreat them. However, this notion that they deserve special treatment is absurd. Look at how they treat each other.

Side: Agree
Atrag(5448) Disputed
3 points

There is one, and only one law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest.

I'm glad you've come round to Darwin's theories.

Side: Disagree
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Survival of the fittest.

Interesting, you deny evolution yet embrace social Darwinism.

I sense hypocrisy.

Side: Disagree
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

There is one, and only one law of the jungle.

This jungle seems oddly de-forested and clean. And not a poisonous frog to be found.

Hm.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Knowing this doesn't make me want to be a vegetarian, and I've always thought animal abuse was wrong. I just accept it as a necessary evil, to be perfectly honest.

One thing that's not going to change is my eating meat. I need the nutrients it gives, and it's the best, easiest way I know of. So the only other option would be to hunt and kill my own food, except the animals I generally eat are all domesticated and no longer live free in the wild.

The problem with vegetarianism on a global scale is mostly, the fact that animals won't be spared, they'll just be spared our abuse.

The second problem is the fact that global vegetarianism is a very unlikely scenario so it's really just a ginormous hypothetical. All of those facts about what the world will be like if we didn't eat meat are all hypothetical equations that haven't been factually calculated in the real world we live in.

Another problem is the inflation of fruit and vegetable prices since our total food supply will now be basically halved, what with no meat or animal products in the mix.

Another issue yet, would be the laws pertaining to meat. Would meat be illegal once a majority of the world accept vegetarianism/veganism? All of the problems that can arise from making meat illegal are so numerous my best bet would be to just compare it to household drugs.

I kind of got off track from the main point's question. I believe animals rights are a joke, because I believe rights are a joke. The definition for rights, or any definition I've ever seen has never fully explained what makes a right different than a privilege. So if all rights are really just privileges, then what's the point of naming them specifically.

Side: Agree
1 point

I saw the PETA logo at the bottom of the screen and I stopped watching. Yes, slaughter houses are pretty nasty. But PETA is insane.

Side: Agree
1 point

A philosophy that suggests some or all animals have the right to possess their own lives. Contrary to popular opinion, animal rights activists do not ask for voting rights for chickens or pigs. Rather they ask that animals not be used for food, entertainment, medical research or clothing. Some activists maintain that there is a distinction between sentient, or self-aware animals, and those with a large degree of self-awareness are to be afforded the right to possess their own lives. Animal rights is also largely tied to dietary lifestyles such as vegetarianism and veganism which abhor the consumption of meat products in accordance with the principles of animal rights.

Animal rights movements are not the same as animal welfare which take into account, the suffering of animals (and seek to prohibit it) but do not grant them specific rights

The Great Ape Project is seen by many animal rights activists, to be a step towards granting other animals the fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and prohibition of torture

Side: Agree

We all say everyone has equal rights but do we mean that in the truest sense,of course not otherwise we would not have chained the animals as our pets.

Side: Agree

I think its wrong to kill and abuse innocent creatures. .

Side: Disagree
1 point

Just for the sake of arguing the least popular side it seems....

survival of the fittest you say? Well, then do you think we should slaughter all the disabled people in our community, or assume they will for certainty somehow die out? After all, they are by your definitions the 'weaker' and therefore in accordance to survival of the fittest would not make the mark. However, to become the fittest you have to start less fit or weak in the first place. So no, I don't agree with you.

My next point is that animals have the faculty of feeling/ emotions, especially for those people who believe in reincarnation and the millions of Buddhists alongside many worldwide religions who share similar philosophies and tenets. I would say that that is a lot of people you are disagreeing with besides me and.........you are assuming that humans are superior in some corrupted way. Did you know that monkeys and elephants have better memories than us and dolphins can hear up to 200,000 Hz whilst humans can only reach up to (the most) 20, 000 Hz. A dogs sense of smell is up to 200 times a human's and the Mantis Shrimp has the most advanced and complex vision in the whole animal kingdom the Stomatopods have up to sixteen primary visual prigments that have peaks of spectral sensitivity ranging from about 350 nanometers, well under the UV, way beyond what we mere humans can see, out to about 700 nanometers (10 to the power of of -9). Proportional to body weight a dung beetle is not only the world's strongest insect but also the strongest animal on the planet -they can pull 1,141 times their own body weight. If not proportional to bodyweight, in water = the blue whale and on land = the African Elephant. If dinosaurs where still alive, we wouldn't have a chance, they only died out because an asteroid/ meteorite hit the earth and so far that is what we know.

Side: Disagree
thousandin1(1932) Clarified
1 point

I think you misunderstand the concept of 'survival of the fittest,' specifically the 'fittest' portion. It appears, from your examples, that you are assuming that 'fitness' in this usage means the same thing as 'fitness' does in terms of health and athletics, but this is not necessarily the case.

'Fitness' in this usage refers to an organisms ability to survive in its environment. More muscle mass means more physical strength, but it also means that the organism expends more energy for everything due to having more and larger cells to support as well as the increased mass that it's limbs need to be able to move. A larger, stronger organism, while possibly more 'fit' in terms of health and athletics, requires significantly more food to support itself, and as such is less fit for an environment with limited available food than a smaller organism.

In terms of environmental fitness, humans have an overwhelming advantage over most other species on the planet- between our cognitive abilities and the structure of our limbs, we have the capability to use tools to shape our environment to meet our needs- this includes creating shelter, agriculture, medicines, weapons, and numerous other things; it even builds upon itself over time due to our capacity to record knowledge and pass it on to others well above and beyond simply teaching our children to do the same things we've already learned to do. Some animals have shades of the ability to adapt their environment, but none have demonstrated this to anywhere near the extent that humans have.

This contributes heavily to our fitness- enough that oftentimes our weak, sick, and crippled members are able to survive and live full lives. Look at pretty much any other species and the life expectancy of weak, injured, and sick is all but negligible. The survival of our weaker members is in fact strong evidence of our environmental fitness.

Side: Agree
1 point

Abusing animals is just like abusing humans!! There's laws about not hitting humans so why can't we do the same for animals. It's cruel and sinful. With animal rights people can't abuse animals, or they get the punishment they deserve. It's the same for humans, you abuse another you get sent to prison. So animal rights is amazing and good.

Side: Disagree
Idiotobx914(1341) Clarified
1 point

Did you watch the video?

Side: Agree
1 point

Watching any video wont make me a vegetarian but I avoid eating meat that comes from companies that kill their animals inhumanly. I believe that an animal is a life to and one that is your comrade shouldn't be abused. They will be your loyal partner till they die. No partner deserves to be hurt in any way shape or form. I also believe that whatever they do to their pet deserves to be done to them just because one of the rescues i have was burned on her belly in more then one place. she didn't deserve that or to be left on the streets to die.

Side: Disagree
AaylaRaven(22) Disputed
1 point

How does one kill humanely? Killing itself IS inhumane. If you eat an animal, it has been murdered.

Side: Agree

I disagree, which is why I support Animal Rights by giving generously to the Society for the Prevention of Little Animal Tragedies (S.P.L.A.T. ;).

Side: Disagree
1 point

You can judge the morality of a people by their treatment of animals. My body, my home, and the things inside it are (as much as possible) cruelty free. There is no reason all sentient beings shouldn't all have the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absolutely sickening the way some humans treat non human animals. Animal rights are important for people to evolve morally, physically and mentally.

Side: Disagree

Animals should not be subjected to cruelty of any kind. It is wrong.

Side: Disagree