Big Sky Debate

PURCHASE AND DOWNLOAD RIGHT NOW!! Big Sky Debate is pleased to release its NFL Nationals Lincoln-Douglas Debate resources on animal rights!!  The resolution, released by the National Forensics League on August 15, 2011, is:

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

A list of briefs for this book appears below the fold.

Compare similar services without Big Sky Debate's seasoned research staff at three to five times the cost?  Why pay more?

Have a great first topic!  Our NFL LD Resources are just $25!

Table of Contents

METADEBATE

• ANIMAL RIGHTS DISTINCT FROM ANIMAL WELFARE
• K: MUST REJECT RESOLUTIONAL DEBATE BECAUSE DUALIST VIEWS ARE BAD

AFFIRMATIVE

• EXPLOITATION OF ANIMALS SIGNIFICANT
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: ALL LIFE DESERVES THE EXTENSION OF RIGHTS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: HELPS THE ENVIRONMENT
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: INTELLECT OF ANIMALS JUSTIFIED ANIMAL RIGHTS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: ANIMALS SHARE MANY HUMAN TRAITS AND SIMILARITIES
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: RELIGIOUS THOUGHT JUSTIFIES ANIMAL RIGHTS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: MUST MOVE TOWARDS BIOCENTRISM
• ANIMAL RIGHTS HELPS HUMANITY
• HUMAN-LIKE INTELLECT NOT REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY ANIMAL RIGHTS
• ANIMAL WELFARISM FAILS
• MUST ADOPT COMPLETE ANIMAL RIGHTS POSITION; INCREMENTAL POSITIONS ARE BAD
• CAN ADOPT AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH TO ANIMAL RIGHTS
• ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: SHOULD EXTEND RIGHTS TO STOP EXPERIMENTATION
• ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: MEDICAL SCIENCE WOULD CONTINUE ON WITHOUT IT
• A/T: AFFIRMATIVE IS RADICAL!
• A/T: ANIMALS MUST HAVE X HUMAN TRAIT TO JUSTIFY RIGHTS
• A/T: ANIMALS ARE RESOURCES/PROPERTY/OBJECTS
• A/T: AMERICANS REJECT ANIMAL RIGHTS
• A/T: NO BRIGHTLINE EXISTS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS
• A/T: ANIMAL RIGHTS IS BASED ON ANTHROPOMORPHIC VIEWS
• A/T: BRIGHT LINE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS REQUIRED
• A/T: HUMAN MISTREATMENT OF EACH OTHER PROVES ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE WORTHLESS
• A/T: NEED FOR FOOD COUNTERS ANIMAL RIGHTS ARGUMENTS
• A/T: ANIMAL RIGHTS NECESSITATE BROAD PRO-LIFE ARGUMENTS
• A/T: PURIST VIEWS SHOULD BE REJECTED

NEGATIVE

• NO BRIGHTLINE EXISTS FOR EXTENDING ANIMAL RIGHTS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ARE EXTREMIST
• ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES ARE INCONSISTENT
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: HURTS HUMAN STANDING
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: SHOULD FOCUS ON HUMAN PROBLEMS INSTEAD
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: PLACING ANIMALS IN OUR SYSTEMS OF INTERACTION RIDICULOUS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: HURTS ANIMALS
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: ANTI-SCIENCE
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: MUST REJECT AFFIRMATIVE POSITION COMPLETELY
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: ANTI-CHRISTIAN
• ANIMAL RIGHTS BAD: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
• HUMANS SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS: HAVE HIGHER INTELLECT
• HUMANS SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS: HAS MORALS
• HUMANS SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS: PUTTING HUMANS ON STOPS ALLOW FOR CARE OF NATURE
• ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS JUSTIFIES USE OF ANIMALS
• A/T: ANIMAL RIGHTS BRING DEEP ECOLOGY OR ECO-CONSCIOUSNESS
• A/T: REJECTING ANIMAL RIGHTS MEANS CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
• A/T: TREATING ANIMALS AS OBJECTS BAD
• A/T: SCIENCE JUSTIFIES ANIMAL RIGHTS
• A/T: ANIMALS CAN DO X, THUS THEY DESERVE RIGHTS