Debate: Should animals have rights?


Mostly Harmless
Jul 9, 2008
Reaction score
Covington, WA
Based upon the "mulching" of the kittens topic, I thought this might be fun:

Before we start, I would like to lay down some ground rules:

1: Debate is a skill and a game. The goal is to win, and winning is determined (in this case) by the judges as the thread winds down. I expect that the "judges" will be anyone who cares to share an opinion and a winner will be declared by consensus. This is NOT intended to be disrespectful of anyone's deeply held beliefs, nor is it intended to mock or make fun of anyone. It's an exercise.

2: Obviously, we won't be adhering to any real format, other than the one we're used to here in the Study. However, bear in mind that judging will be based upon the following criteria, in order of importance:

  • Did you prove your point?
  • Did you do so in a way that was engaging and respectful?
  • Did you state your points in a manner that was accessible to a lay person?
  • Did you stay on the topic of the debate?

3: The entire point of this game is to argue the position that most directly opposes your own.

4: That's it. Have fun. Let's see how this goes.

Debate: Should animals have rights?

Many companies now allege to perform no testing on animals. We can see cage free eggs and free range chickens. People are becoming vegans or strict vegetarians, suggesting that animals have feelings like us, know right from wrong, and that hurting them is immoral. Caging them, experimenting on them, eating them. Is this wrong?

The other side might suggest that we are at the top of the food chain for a reason. We have molars to crush and incisors to cut. If we weren't meant to eat meat, by God, we wouldn't have canines. Animals aren't humans, and going out of our way to make sure that our food has had happy, free range lives is ridiculous. Many of the most important discoveries in our history, including many life saving medical discoveries, cost the lives of some mice, rabbits, primates or some other type of animal... and it's worth it.

Remember the ground rules, and that the point of this exercise is to try and argue for the position opposite of your own.


Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Jan 16, 2006
Reaction score
I'd lean more towards the side of animals having rights but not all the way to one side. I do not support unnecessary animal testing. I think animal testing plays an important role in testing a new drub. But I find it very difficult to believe that my mascara has compounds that are so unknown that it must be tested on animals to go to market.

Sure, we are at the top of the food chain, and with great power comes great responsibility. I do indeed eat meat, and I prefer to do so by eating meat from people who have been good stewards of their livestock. The animal will give their life to feed us and provide raw materials, I believe we owe it to the animal to harvest them humanely and use as much of the parts as possible. I prefer local grass-fed beef. I also don't have much of an issue with mechanically separated chicken. The chicken is dead, use its parts to make more food.