Instigator / Pro
0
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Topic
#5721
Animals are persons
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
8
debates
43.75%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Animals have sentience, pain, happiness, intelligence, goals, want quality life..ect.
just like humans.
Thus, no significantly different treatment of animals from humans can be justified, as animals are similar enough to humans that treating them worse than humans is morally wrong.
"Animals have sentience, pain, happiness, intelligence, goals, want quality life..ect"
I agree, animals feel pain, joy, they are intelligent and have goals. (I am not mentioning sentience as that is impossible to quantify)
Do you know what else responds to negative/positive stimuli, is intelligent and has goals?
An amoeba and,
Chat GTP
Chat GTP is trained on negative and positive feedback (joy and pain), Chat GTP is intelligent, and Chat GTP has many goals ask him about it.
In some ways Chat GTP shows these traits much more expressively than most animals, and for amoebas?
Amoebas have the same goals as most animals, survive and reproduce, nothing they do is for any reason other than that.
Same for a chicken, they do nothing but eat, mate, anything else can be chalked up to positioning themselves to eat or mate more.
However, humans do many thing animals don't,
Like art,
People slave away making art few appreciate for no reason other than the inherent joy they receive from creating it.
And humor?
TikTok is giving you images or ideas and you find them "funny" and you experience joy because of that?
Nothing even slightly akin to that exists in the animal world and THAT is the difference between animals and humans.
Round 2
Do you know what else responds to negative/positive stimuli, is intelligent and has goals?An amoeba and,Chat GTP
None of those feel any pain or happiness. I could agree that ChatGTP is more of a person than most humans, but this isnt the topic about ChatGTP.
Like art,People slave away making art few appreciate for no reason other than the inherent joy they receive from creating it.And humor?TikTok is giving you images or ideas and you find them "funny" and you experience joy because of that?Nothing even slightly akin to that exists in the animal world and THAT is the difference between animals and humans.
My opponent thinks its okay to kill humans who dont do art, dont have humor, dont have TikTok and arent funny, since he doesnt consider those humans persons, since his standard for personhood is exactly what he said above.
"My opponent thinks its okay to kill humans who dont do art, dont have humor, dont have TikTok and arent funny, since he doesnt consider those humans persons, since his standard for personhood is exactly what he said above."
Here lies the issue with your thinking.
There is no human like that.
There is no human being that does not engage in some form of art and does not possess some kind of humor, if there were they would be a meaningless blob that would be as inconsequential as the thousands of pigs we kill a day.
I hope you also respond to my other points as I thought those were interesting, and irrefutable.
Round 3
There is no human being that does not engage in some form of art and does not possess some kind of humor, if there were they would be a meaningless blob that would be as inconsequential as the thousands of pigs we kill a day.
Plenty of people dont engage in art and humor, from babies to those in a coma. My opponent might say "they can be funny", but animals make others smile too.
Suggesting that "if a human lacked mentioned characteristics, killing him would be okay" is absurd.
I hope you also respond to my other points as I thought those were interesting, and irrefutable.
Already responded to.
I would say that not only can they make people laugh, but they can also laugh. People in a coma can listen and laugh and Rember jokes, and babies laugh constantly. There isn't a single person that doesn't engage in some form of art, whether that is a baby smearing carrot on the wall, or you reading this engaging in debate. The idea of two animals talking to each other in an attempt to show superiority over their idea is absurd to a monkey, but it us it makes perfect sense.
Sadly you did not respond to my point to what point life starts, which is sad as i believed it to be a very strong point. Regardless I thought this was a good debate!
To everyone watching, vote CON!!
This one is standard.