Question: Is it Ethical to Utilize Animals for Scientific or Commercial Experimentation?

The use of animals in scientific and commercial testing should not be prohibited outright. Here are three main points to consider:

A. Animal testing can cause harm to the subjects: Regardless of its effectiveness, it is undeniable that animals used in testing are often mistreated. Reports estimate that over 100 million animals are killed each year for testing purposes. These animals are subjected to various methods, such as forced chemical exposure, which can include oral force-feeding, inhalation, and injection into various parts of the body. They are also exposed to drugs, chemicals, or infectious diseases that cause illness, pain, distress, or death. Genetic manipulation, ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification, short periods of physical restraint, food and water deprivation, surgical procedures, infliction of wounds, burns, and other injuries to study healing, infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment, behavioral experiments designed to cause distress, and other manipulations to create "animal models" of human diseases are also common. Many animals that survive the testing are eventually euthanized. Some argue that animals do not feel pain or emotion like humans, but this is not entirely true. While animals cannot communicate through words like humans, they do experience pain, as evidenced by their behaviors such as decreased socializing, reduced eating, increased vocalization, and elevated heart rate. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well-established and recognized by law in many countries. However, we do not fully understand how animals experience pain. This inability to communicate in the same way as humans means that animals cannot consent to the experiments, unlike humans who can.

B. Animals have significant differences from humans: While animals share some similarities with humans, the differences between the two can be problematic in testing. Even primates, which are often considered the closest to humans, have failed to predict human reactions to certain treatments. For example, monkeys treated with a therapeutic antibody did not predict the potentially fatal immune response triggered in humans. Chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, have also been found to be unnecessary for research and are being phased out. Humans and chimpanzees have different stances, strengths, and genes, among other factors. They also have varying levels and types of parasites and pathogens. These differences can cause issues when considering other species as test subjects, such as rats, mice, birds, fish, and frogs.

C. Drugs tested on animals are not always safe: Due to the unreliability of animal test subjects, they can provide inaccurate results. A notable

I affirm that owning and caring for a pet(s) is unethical. Ethical is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "in accordance with the principles of ethics; morally correct, honourable", and so we can define unethical as anything that is not morally correct or honourable. When we consider questions of an ethical nature, we must clearly state our values to defend our decisions. The key value that pertains to this debate today (and must always be considered in ethical dilemmas) is the value of human life. The sanctity of human life must be valued and preserved before one considers luxuries such as comfort and entertainment, or even personal security. To deny this would be unjust. To place emphasis on this fact, I introduce the criterion of equality. Equality is "the condition of having equal rank, power, excellence, etc., with others" (OED). When we have gained equality, the value of human life will have been upheld (in whatever propensity that may be). Americans Alone Spend $61,000,000,000 On Pets Annually This statistic is stunning. It is undeniable that the average American pet has a higher quality of life than many people living in the impoverished nations of the world. This cannot be defended with justice or equality- it is a travesty against them. Pet ownership thus disvalues human life, making it unethical. (http://www.usnews.com...)

Thanks for instigating this debate, as Con I will argue that if I accepts utilitarianism I should accept that animals have equal rights to humans. Disclaimer: I am a utilitarian and a vegetarian myself yet I am not playing devils advocate.I chose Con for two simple reasons: "Equal" and "Rights"RightsUtilitarianism has no regards for natural rights, in fact proponents of natural rights and rights theories are most of the time direct opponents of utilitarianism. It is true that some rights are prescriptively useful for the utilitarian normative idea but as soon as rights stand in the way of welfare the utilitarian puts the rights aside.EqualSince I dismissed the "rights" part of "equal rights" I will treat equal as in equal moral responsibility."Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, adults who entered parks would become fearful that they would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment. The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon." (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics chap. 3)With this in mind it should be clear why animals are not to be treated equal to humans.

Thanks Con! I urge the voters not to take into account round 2 for their vote. Onto the rebuttals. My opponent makes two main points: -Animals feel -We need animals for our survival Point #1: Animals Feel Con states: "Humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and empathy." This may or may not be the case, but it seems to admit that morality is a social construction, and by extension, subjective. If indeed 'humans created the concept of ethics', then there would be no objective source of morality. If this is the case, however, then it is hard to see how Con can uphold their argument. If ethics is a social construct then rights as an objective reality don't exist. How then can we give them to animals? Simply, we cannot. It thus seems that in his argument, Con shoots himself in the foot. If morality is a human concept and a human concept alone, then there would be neither a duty nor reason to treat animals morally, for that would require an objective foundation to morality. More precisely, I do not see how this means that 'animals feel' as Con states. Why should the fact that morality is a social construction mean that animals feel? It would be useful if my opponent could elaborate on this point. Again Con States: "Animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. Humans did greatly influence global warming and made it worse." Again, this may or may not be the case, but isn't, I think, relevent to the motion. Many things help the ecosystem balance, yet we do not grant them rights on that basis. Plants are a prime example [1], which are vital to any ecosystem, thus benefiting humans, yet we do not give them rights (whether we protest against their demise or not, they never have rights in the conventional sense). Also, the latter point may be countered by a simple example: the cow. A UN report in 2006 showed that cows, by methane emissions, contribute more to global warming than all cars put together [2]. Animals, therefore, may be detrimental to the environment, pace Con. Point #2: We need animals for our survival Against this, it may be said that animals are one of, if not the only, sources of food for a great deal of the world's populace: thus, especially in more impoverished regions of the world, animal rights, especially that to life, would severely thwart human well-being. E.g. Eskimos and whales. Namely, human right to well-being: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family". Article 25 (1) [3]. This shows, at the least, that animal rights should not be a universal principle, contrary to Con's argument. If they were, then humans across the globe would suffer. Surely we should place human rights above those of animals in most cases. Thus I do not disagree that we need animals for our survival. However, this does not at all entail that they deserve rights! To the contrary, only by denying animals' right to life can many survive at all. In order for humans to flourish, animals cannot. In short, I don't think Con has developed his points enough to make a cogent, holistic argument. Sources: [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk... [3] http://www.un.org...

There animals out there that are suffering from so many things, hunting, testing, you name it. Their life is just as important as your's, people who are eating them, think for a second, would you like to be eaten by animals? I think most of the answers are no. So think twice before doing whatever you're doing to them.

Thanks clashnboom! I hope this is an enjoyable debate. I accept the terms and conditions. I'll give a single argument (only one to preserve time and space) as to why Animals should not receive rights. Argument From Reciprocity The argument runs thusly: Premiss 1. Only those who respect the rights of others deserve rights. Premiss 2. Animals do not, and indeed, cannot, respect the rights of others. Premiss 3. Animals do not deserve rights. The argument is deductive, valid by modus tollens (P-->Q, -P, --> -Q). Defence of the premises Premiss 1. This assumption is central to the way we live our everyday moral lives - and indeed, run society and the criminal justice system. Think about murderers and paedophiles, who do not respect the rights of their victims. What do we do? We strip them of their rights, by putting them in jail, corporal punishment or other punitive means. In simple terms, we apply our ethics according to premiss one: we deny rights to those who deny it of others. This indeed appears to be a universal norm, across all societies. This is based on the principles of Scanlon's contractionalism, i.e., the idea that "morality is based on contract or agreement" [1]. Since animals cannot adhere to this contract, they deserve no moral treatment. This principle (contractionalism) is evident by the very fact that ethics is not an altruism: not everyone simply deserves ethical treatment for no cause - there must be a reason why one deserves to be treated morally. If we deny this, then ethics would be merely a brute fact, which makes little sense when one considers the relativism of ethical truths (hence this very debate). As a result, we must transcend individualistic theories of ethics. Indeed, for the sake of the argument, we need only to accept a weaker underlying principle that ethics is (a) an interaction involving two (or more) people, and (b) is a rational process - both hopefully rather evident: (a) because ethics is by definition the moral treatment of others, and (b) because ethics requires moral deliberation (e.g. deliberating whether or not to steal). Premiss 2. This premiss seems undebatable. Clearly, animals are not rational beings. Consequently, they cannot cognitively register the receipt of ethical rights. As Kant states: "Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves". [2] In other words, Kant draws upon a straightforward distinction between us and animals: we exist in an end of ourselves, owing to our rational and free actions. However, animals have neither rational nor free thought (i.e., higher consciousness). If this is the case, though, then they cannot possibly respect the rights of others as they have no comprehension of rights. Thus, lions care only for food when they tear apart a deer and have no guilty conscience. It is clear from their behaviour that animals do not act in a moral way for the sake of morality. Indeed, ethical truths necessarily require rational explication. Since animals cannot do this, one must reject the idea that animals can act ethically as an end of itself, and a fortiori, respect the rights of others. [3] Even animals such as dogs (or higher animals such as gorillas) do not recognise these rights - indeed, the way they act is simply in accordance to a stimulus-response and a Darwinian-esque survival instinct, with no rational choice in relation to moral behaviour (choice to do right or wrong is central to moral behaviour). If we respect animals, they accept it only as a benefit of survival - not on purely ethical principle, in stark contrast to humans. We should, therefore, never expect animals to respect principles of moral rights. They have no moral consciousness in the way that rational beings (i.e. humans) do. Premiss 3. A moral obligation to animals, therefore, is unnecessary. Morally, rights can be given only those who both a) comprehend rights and b) respect the rights of others. Since animals can do neither of these things, they do not deserve rights. The argument follows from the first two premises by modus tollens. Over to you, Con. Sources: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] Ibidem

I have selected Envisage as my opponent! =) Definitions: Ethical treatment of livestock: This includes, but is not limited to stunning & rendering animals unconscious before they are slaughtered, minimizing livestock's stress before slaughter, handling animals well, and providing them with healthy living conditions. For further details, see Humane Handling of Livestock standards as defined by the USDA. [1] In this debate, I will also apply ethical standards to all avian creatures, like chickens and turkeys. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments/rebuttals Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals/Conclusion only 72 hours per round, 10k character limit [1] http://www.fsis.usda.gov...

Whilst my opponent does indeed start to make a convincing argument as I can see they would be great to shoot with a shotgun, quite dramatic,like a exploding melon full of blood or something, they really pale in to comparison when compared to other exciting things we can do to animals.Take this for example:The Junkie Monkey Experiment - (hums happy 60's theme tune)In this experiment, a large group of monkeys and rats were trained to inject themselves with an assortment of drugs, including morphine, alcohol, codeine, cocaine, and amphetamines. Once the animals were capable of self-injecting, they were left to their own devices with a large supply of each drug. The animals were so disturbed that some tried so hard to escape that they broke their arms in the process. The monkeys taking cocaine suffered convulsions and in some cases tore off their own fingers (possible as a consequence of hallucinations), one monkey taking amphetamines tore all of the fur from his arm and abdomen, and in the case of cocaine and morphine combined, death would occur within 2 weeks. The point of the experiment was simply to understand the effects of addiction and drug use.Now if monkeys tearing of their own fingers is not more entertaining then I don't know what is. But wait, perhaps there IS more to enjoy..How about:The Well of Despair and Harlow's Psychotic Monkeys??? Sounds tempting huh? huh?Dr. Harry Harlow was an unsympathetic person, using terms like the “rape rack” and “iron maiden” in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, “common sense results.”Totally predictable and utterly pointless suffering, this man was a GREAT hunter I bet, I have idolised him as such anyhow.I know what you thinking, that wasn't cool at all, the monkeys aren't dead, well I think he did shoot them after so it counts ok?I think so far I have provided a snippet of other exciting areas of animal abuse that start to show that limiting oneself, to the admittedly satisfying species of Pinnipeds, is to deprive humanity of all sorts of exciting things.This section was for the psychologists, dmit it the results were interesting! No, well. Next we shall explore other species in other fascinating areas to convince you Pro is wrong!!Pro will likely try to seduce you with novel ways of blowing up seals or the like, remember, Seals cannot pull off their own fingers...

Animals rights:First, my opponent literally is just ignoring every refutation I've put against him by just restating his case and not responding to anything I've said. Cross-apply the Cohen evidence I read last round that says that animals cannot be placed at the same capacity as humans because they are incapable of grasping ethical concepts and premises, thus making them unable to enter a community of moral agents, which would be necessary to gain rights (i.e. not to be tested on). This goes literally unresponded to. All my opponent is saying is that if they look like us and they act like us then they must be the same, but that's unresponsive to the warrants in Cohen which pre-empt those causesSecond, he can't say that "Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically," in one section, but argue the point in his case that "Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects.". That's literally the exact opposite of his case, and actually benefits my side since if they are anatomically and physiologically similar, then that makes them perfect test subjects.Animals suffering is necessary to testing:My opponent is trying to use the very conclusion that I'm challenging to justify his arguments. He's saying that because animals will suffer and die and all this stuff that it makes animal testing immoral, but ignores literally everything I say about how this doesn't have to be something inherent within the system, and that this is something that we can fix without getting rid of animal testing. Why do certain animals have to be excluded from federal protection against maltreatment? Let's include them. Why do we have to kill the animals we test on? Give them homes in habitats where they can live the rest of their natural lives in comfort post-testing. He's provided no warrant for why animals have to be killed, for why animals have to suffer more than absolutely necessary, or even suffer at all, and this is the very assumption that I'm attacking and trying to say "This doesn't have to happen in animal testing. let's fix it!". But, he never responds to it, so hold it against him as conceded. Alternatives to Animal testing:Why must my opponent ignore literally all of my counter-arguments and just try to restate his case to rebuild his case? Cross apply the Murali evidence which says that not only are the alternatives that he proposes already in use in the current system, meaning that they're providing us results when in conjunction with animal testing, but also the part that says that animal testing is still superior to these alternatives as a method of testing ("And as powerful as modern computers are, there’s still simply no comparison – the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present."). Moreover, cross-apply where I said that even if he's showing that there are good alternatives to animal testing, that doesn't mean that animal testing is bad. Just because driving to work is more efficient than walking to work, that doesn't mean that walking to work is bad. So even if you're buying this point, it's not sufficient to negate. Animals and the Mentally handicapped:Again, another day another ignored response. Cross apply the Frey evidence which establishes the differences between the mentally handicapped and animals which justifies why we don't experiment on the mentally handicapped and do experiment on animals.Furthermore, cross apply the Cohen evidence which explains another difference. Even the mentally impaired are capable of grasping ethical premises, whereas animals are physically unable to. This means that the mentally impaired are capable of entering a community of moral agents, which is how rights are distributed, whereas animals are incapable of doing this. Sending a messageOne, this is literally irrelevant. It would send a good message if everyone who smoked cigarettes just trashed every box of smokes they had and the world became 100% tobacco free, but that doesn't give a single reason why we ought to. But two, I can do this under affirming. My opponent's been blind to me trying to make this clear throughout the entire debate, so let me state it really plainly and simply (and in bold letters to make it pop): I WANT TO HELP ANIMALS TO ENSURE THAT THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SUFFERING IS INFLICTED ON THEM, IF ANY NEEDS TO BE AT ALL, AND THAT IF SCIENTISTS EXPERIMENTING ON ANIMALS MISTREAT THEM, THAT THEY ARE HELD MORALLY AND LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.Are we all good now? So in short, I can send the same good message.My case!Yay we can actually have responses and clash now! He made responses to my case! To go through them (I'll just use the same Roman Numeral system he used for simplicity) - i - One, he provides absolutely no warrant. Two, my sources explain how animal testing has led to the development of these other factors that cure diseases. I never make the claim that because we poked around in a cow for a little while we found a syringe with a vaccine for AIDS in it. ii - One, cross-apply all my responses for why the alternatives he provided suck and why animal testing is still a superior way of gaining information. Two, cross-apply all my responses for why alternatives existing doesn't prove that animal testing is bad.iii - This is literally the same thing with his alternatives. He provides no reason why his alternatives will provide us with anything in the future.iv - One, literally irrelevant. Animal testing has made a massive impact on society and given us some of the greatest medical advances we've ever known. Two, that's not true. The impact of animal testing through certain cancer treating medicines is still felt today, meaning that there's most certainly significance in the status quo.v - .....okay? I'm saying that by testing on animals we've gotten major medical advances and can continue to do so. What's your point?vi and vii (since they're the same essentially) - One, okay this is annoying. You literally said above how animals were similar anatomically and physiologically, and now you're taking it back. Make up your mind. Two, actually I'll make it up for your. Cross-apply the Murali 2 evidence where I show how animals are still useful for testing certain medications and their impacts on humans (" Say someone is developing a drug that should act on opioid receptors. The questions researchers ask are – does the drug target what it’s supposed to, and then, does that give rise to a benefit in treating a disease? To this end, mouse opioid receptors work just as well as human ones.")And, don't let him actually extend on his rebuttals in his next speech because I won't get a chance to respond to them since I have to give up the last round, as his round format indicates. Since I won't get a chance to respond to anything he says in the next round, don't let him make new arguments and responses in his last speech.Summary of the Debate:To put it simply, my opponent hasn't done nearly enough work on his side of the flow to justify doing away with animal testing. He hasn't responded to a single attack against his case that I've made, rather just insists on restating his points without actually respodning to my refutations. Hold this against him.At best, since I'm responding to his refutations and he's not responding to mine, you're prefering my arguments because I'm actually creating clash in the debate.Moreover, he's not doing enough work to show that the harms of animal testing are something that we can't solve back for. He's just making the assumptions that animals are unable to not suffer from testing, and that animals have to die when they're tested on, which is the exact assumption I'm challenging. Furthermore, he's not responding to my objections that alternatives aren't actually going to do anything different from what we're doing under animal testing. And even if he is, he isn't responding to my argument that just because there's an alternative doesn't prove that what we're doing now is needing change. And, he still hasn't provided any kind of sources or citations, so you're inherently prefering my arguments as more credible. In the (unlikely) event that you're not sure who's arguments are more valid, you err aff since I'm actually providing the credibility that what I'm saying is actually true and I'm not just BSing things.

We both agree on premises 1, 3, 7, and 8 and there were declared non-controversial. However to clear some misunderstanding i will be answering your questions: In premise 2, i agree with what you had to say toward having different kinds of pain; however, it does not matter what kind of a pain a person is experiencing because even if it were physical or emotional it is still pain and it is still an emotion a person would feel (that is what i was trying to say). On the other hand, i will change premise 2 to be: there are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is just an emotion that a subject feels when something out of one's control effect their feelings. **In premise 4, i agree with what you had to say towards it. So i am going to add extra premise before premise 4 to clarify the definition of morality: So after premise there i will have... What is ethical is moral. Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own. To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral. Morality consists of set of rules that individuals voluntary agree to abide by, such as signing a contrast. ** The changes that are between (**) make the definition of morality more clean. In premises 5 and 6 what i meant was, that humans and animals do have the same rights. For example, there are rights against harming animals just like how we have rights/ laws against harming humans or having them experience pain, no matter what form it is in (physical or emotional). Premise 6 says that if animals AND humans (or persons) have the same rights in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. Also, to clarify my example further, we have laws against harming/ abusing animals that cause subjects to go to punished for it, just like humans. harming or abusing another human being also have the same consequences as any subject harming an animal. In premise 9, by independent value means their own value or what they are worth. This independent value could be violated be causing harm which is considered immoral. In premise 10, just like killing/harming a person is considered immoral, harming an animal, or a monkey, is also considered immoral; which explains why humans and animals are moral objects. Also, to answer your question we are permitted to harm animals but we choose not to, just like humans. We have rights to expect each other and not cause harm to one another but also we have laws that respect those rights, which is what i meant by we have rights that prevent us from harming animals. In premise 11, this premise only shows that there are more examples that show how similar humans/ persons are how just like humans have inherited values so do animals and monkeys as well; which supports my conclusion that Monkeys are should be considered persons. Finally, to answer one of you last questions... when i refer to humans that also means persons as well, because humans are considered persons.

animals are living beings who are able to feel pain, have emotions, and make decisions just as humans. If someone murders a person they can get a life sentence or even the death penalty. if someone kills an animal without reason their life was not in danger the worst they face is a couple years in jail. if someone decided to own a bunch of humans keep them in poor conditions and then slaughter them they would undoubtedly face serious criminal charges while it is legal to do the same thing to animals. on the other side of this animals who bite a human can be forced to be put to death. this is equivalent to giving someone the death penalty for punching someone. both the human and the animal can be considered dangerous to society however society allows the human to continue living among society. keep in mind that the animal may have even been provoked to do this either from an abusive past trigger or the human being violent with the animal. thinking that this is right is outright arrogant and sick in no way was that system created from a kind and rational being. If we gave animals the same legal rights as humans this animal injustice would be put to an end they would be protected from murder, abuse, and unfair treatment. It would also deter people from a tendency to take out their violence on animals as they could face the same charges as if it were a human. in the end who in their right mind would think that it's ok to treat animals cruely there is no reason that animals need to be killed or abused so why wouldn't you want to stop that from happening to them?


Question: Should Animals be Utilized for Scientific and Commercial Experimentation?

Animal Testing: The Ethical Dilemma
I acknowledge that animal testing has contributed valuable insights in the development of vaccines and saved countless human lives. Nevertheless, it is unjust to use animals as a means to an end in our quest for cures and vaccines for human diseases. Animals were not placed on this earth solely for human experimentation. Some are meant to be our companions, while others should be free to roam in the wild. "Humans are the only hunters who kill when not hungry," as Steven Spielberg once said. At this very moment, chimpanzees are being tested for HIV, but it's worth noting that they cannot contract the virus. There has been only one recorded case of a monkey dying from AIDS, a chimp named Jerom, who was injected with three different strains of the virus, leading to a hybrid strain. Some argue that "animals don't have feelings," but their inability to communicate their pain doesn't mean they don't feel it. Animals can experience a range of emotions, including happiness, sadness, and depression. In his final months, Jerom became severely depressed and frustrated. His caretakers reported seeing him quietly sobbing and curling up in a fetal position to comfort himself. Does that sound like an animal without feelings? Rodents are often used in research, but they are only 37% effective in determining the cause of cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would yield more accurate results. 95% of drugs that pass animal tests are later deemed useless or dangerous to humans. An example is the drug Vioxx, which was found to be safe in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been linked to around 320,000 heart attacks/strokes and about 140,000 deaths worldwide. Not only did the drug cost thousands of animal lives, but it also had a negative impact on nearly half a million humans. If scientists want to find cures and vaccines for human diseases, they should use willing human volunteers, not helpless animals. I may not be able to hear their cries, but I'm confident that if they could speak, they would beg for freedom and plead to be released into their natural habitat. Despite popular belief, there are alternatives to animal testing. One promising option is the "organ-on-a-chip" device, which is catching the attention of pharmaceutical companies. It's a microchip lined with human cells through which air, nutrients, blood, and infection-causing bacteria can be pumped. These devices are designed

Animals are inferior and humans are superior beings. Humans can create and use weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately there is no justice. There is no mercy for the weak. Humans have conquered the Earth. Might makes right. "The weak will perish." startrek.com "Back in 2006 ocean scientists published an alarming report on the crisis ocean fish face. They released data showing that 90% of fish and other ocean life have perished in the last 100 years. 18% of ocean species have been reduced in number by more than 90% with 7% of fish species now extinct." http://russgeorge.net... "Every five minutes humans kill off a species." animalethics.org "Feral cats behind extinction of unique Aussie mammals" http://phys.org... Just as the dodo bird has gone extinct. Weak species will become extinct. This is the harshness of reality. Justice and morality are illusions. Constructs made by man. Instead, we have order. The order that the strong take from the weak. Viking raiders invading Europe. Mega conglomerates taking over smaller businesses. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Laws and order are created so the rich and powerful stay in power. Think politicians voting for their selves. The idea of justice was created by the rich and powerful to maintain order and repress the peasantry. Same goes with morality. Want to get rid of a troublemaker? Invent some moral law and then execute the person for breaking the bias law. People want a reason or rationalization for actions, even if they don't make sense. This is the way I perceive the world. I may be wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to stop aliens with advanced technology killing all species on the third rock from the sun for entertainment purposes. Power and order are the only values. It is the duty of the powerful to take from the weak ensuring order. Therefore, animal cruelty in all forms is justified. Think wild chimpanzees, with an alpha ape. The strong tribes take over the territory of the weak. Just as the powerful species cause inferior species to go extinct. http://www.startrek.com... http://russgeorge.net... http://www.animalethics.org.uk... http://phys.org...

Why Not Testing on Animals is Bad:This one is simple enough: think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone.The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[2]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish.It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows.But why freaking stop there? Lets throw out some more discoveries from animal testing[3]. Breast Cancer? Animal research was crucial when we developed Herceptin and Tamoxifen, which help cure breast cancer. Leukemia? Testing on mice lead to the development of Gleevec, which is the first molecularly targeted drug against cancer, and we also use Gleevec to gastrointestinal stromal tumor (known as GIST) which was untreatable before it's development.Lung Cancer? Researching on mice is critical to understanding, preventing, and detecting lung cancer, as well as for developing new therapies for treating it. Heart Disease or Stroke? Everything from what foods to eat to minimze risk to the development of statins, a pill that helps control cholestoral and reduce risk for heart disease, come off of the back of animal studies.I could keep going, but I think I've made my point fairly clear: medical advances stop if we stop testing on animals.Sources:(2) - http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...(3) - http://www.amprogress.org...;

Thank for your great arguments. now on...*I wouldn't think anyone was going to accept this debate since we don't know much about where the animal that we eat come from or how we benefit from it everyday*Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights-It is true that animal cloning is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. But this same animal right that were violating is beneficial for humans because according to "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, and you are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning. " Humans may suffer "immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and and other related diseases. Now for a human to suffer or die, Not really a humane thing to do, is it?""Since the first cloned mammal, scientists have worked to find a practical application for cloning that will produce advances for human diseases. In some inherited disorders, such as hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and emphysema, the only way to treat such patients is through therapeutic proteins, which are obtained through the milk of an animal (Straight). These animals carry a certain protein that is secreted in their milk or blood, which is then harvested and purified for use (Nagal). Drugs made from these proteins are extremely scarce and expensive. Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals ("Medical Uses.."). With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins. In addition, cloned animals can be used to obtain a greater understanding for diseases and other mysteries of life. Researchers will be able to create better models of diseases with animal cloning, which will further progress in understanding and possibly treating such diseases (Nagal). "*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *According to http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food Rebuttal 2: commericial beneficial-Now i know that it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred, that fact of the matter of cloning speeds it up for more of it while naturally we have to wait for it. "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." most of these people may simplily be vegetarians. But the matter of fact is that... "After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry. Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.**Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day." Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed. What Cloning Means to Consumers• FDA has concluded that cattle, swine, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are safe for human and animal consumption. • Food labels do not have to state that food is from animal clones or their offspring. FDA has found no science-based reason to require labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from conventionally produced animals. • The main use of clones is to produce breeding stock, not food. These animal clones—copies of the best animals in the herd—are then used for conventional breeding, and the sexually reproduced offspring of the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.• Due to the lack of information on clone species other than cow, goat, and pig (for example, sheep), FDA recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food supply. Animal cloning is beneficial for the human race, in agriculture and drug production, maintaing biodiversity, and biomedical research. Facts shows it that its beneficial for human, animal, and the enviroment. I look forward from hearing from my opponent. http://www.123helpme.com...http://www.fda.gov...http://www.fda.gov...;

Yes humans are animals anyone would know that. You even admited that we started as animals. If today was some milion years ago we would be killing each other. Indeed we dont chase our tails, monkes too dont chase their tails. Indeed we dont live in a jungle, to the animals london is a jungle to them. Indeed animals dont work, but eagles go hunting for their young ones. Call a zebra an animal, zebras also see us as animals. Conclusion we are all animals with different lifestyles, mentality, abilities and appearence. Thus killing your dog is killing a fellow inocent animal and is MURDER!

I would indeed hate to miss out on many animals to harm like the ones you show, but I say sea lions are the premium animal. That kitten in the pavement won my heart and I could not help but think of tazering the kitten and later drowning it. The animals used for getting rid of landmines have me a dark, cheap laugh as well. I remember when i was little, i would stick many of my mothers needle in Ground Beetles and burning caterpillars with fire. They would give out a high pitched scream that i will always remember. All animals considered, there will be hundreds of amazing experience and animals to experiment with to be had but the bottom line is the quality of satisfaction from a sea lion is without a doubt my favorite. Population is not an issue, cuteness is not an issue, and easy killing and blood supply are there.

I thank Con for their arguments. Ob1: In Note 1, it is clearly mentioned that “one animal’s rights are accorded equal consideration to one human’s rights”, i.e. an animal can sacrifice its rights for the rights of many humans, and a human can sacrifice their rights for the rights of many animals. Therefore, via. the rules themselves, “The idea that one animal's life can be sacrificed for many goes against the definitions. The definition specifics justice requires giving ‘each’ their due. Each person would need to be given their right to life under that definition, so therefore one life cannot be sacrificed for the greater good” is an incorrect observation. Ob2: From Note 1, we can demonstrate thus - if I can show that animals have any rights at all, even just one, and I can show that these rights are required by justice, then I win the debate. Ob3: Con’s arguments on humans incapable of being immoral while many animal actions are immoral is flawed as it depends on a very specific definition of “morality” to be valid. For humans, immorality is not following the ethical or social values ascribed to them by human community, but for animals, as they cannot think with the logical complexity of humans, it is the ethical values ascribed to them by personal instinct, or, in cases of social animals, social community of that specific animal. As seen in the previous round, as humans have the psychological capability to violate their instinct, moral values ascribed to them will be different, as will moral entitlements. But humans must extend their values to all regardless of species as must animals, else it is an unjust community. As animals’ values are determined by instinct, it is impossible for them to break those ethical constructs. Humans violate human ethical constructs by limiting these ethical constructs to solely human species. R1) Animal Testing First, expanded research on microdosing, in vitro methods, and synthetic organs will limit animal testing to the bare minimum, following which there will be no need to cause testing that is extremely harmful or to the point where it cannot be regulated to ensure humane treatment of animals. Con drops the humane treatment argument completely. Second, I apply Observation 1 and Note 1 to show that my classification of one animal being sacrificed to save many lives, or one human being sacrificed to save many lives, still stands as an argument. I extend it to this round. R2) Veganism RIIA. Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids “… vegans can obtain DHA from microalgae supplements containing DHA, as well as from foods fortified with DHA. However, EPA can be obtained from the retroconversion of DHA in the body.” [1. http://tinyurl.com...] While DHA supplements, if taken without caution, may result in cardiovascular risk due to rise in total cholesterol, they can be taken in appropriate quantities to halt the same. According to findings published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the conversion of plant-based Omega-3 ALA to the long-chain EPA and DHA may be increased in non-fish eaters. [2. http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com...] Therefore, in people who do not eat fish, the circulatory system becomes adapted to increase conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. As cited in the previous round, kiwifruit and flaxseed oil contain major amounts of ALA. Therefore, on balance, a vegan diet allows for good amounts of Omega-3 PUFAs. RIIB. Vitamin B12 First, it is the regulation system here that is flawed. For this “just” society to be just by definition, it must cater to animal rights. As supplements are available, the regulation of supplements must also be strict for it to be classified as a just society. Con is arguing for a resolution “Animals Should Have Rights”, whereas this debate refers to justice requiring the recognition of animal rights. Therefore, as the resolution refers to a correction in society from the status quo of there not being complete recognition of animal rights, the status quo must change. If B12 supplements were not available, then it would be subject to debate, but if there is a minor correction in the regulation system, then it fits with the resolution itself. Secondly, as we speak of the United States’ regulation, I would like to note that fortified foods are available for all. [3. http://www.veganhealth.org...] I would like to note that the source used by Pro to state that fortified foods are not available to all states nothing of the sort. R3) Morality First, Pro misunderstands the concept of immorality. Pro states that animals commit “immoral” acts but these acts are not the animal’s fault. If the animal commits an act but it is not the animal’s fault, then the act does not qualify as an immoral act by definition. The point here is that favoritism for humans is equally unfair. Fairness is defined as “treating people equally without discrimination.” [4. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] If animals cannot reason, then they cannot commit immoral actions, as the very ability to judge between morality and immorality lies with high intellectual capability. The ecological “balance” cited by me merely refers to the maintenance of species in an ecosystem. Scientists do agree that without animal predators, both predators and prey would be in danger. The same does not apply to humans. [5. Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, S. C.; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press. p. 1921. ISBN 978-0-300-08469-6.] “They don't meet the standards, which have to be consistent to be fair.” The supposed “immorality” of animals is a result of the need for the adaptive survival of the individual and the species as a whole. Animals cannot reason, hence they do not have the ability to process purely human ideals of morality. Therefore, the rights of animals are not forfeited. Fairness’ definition, given above, entails that all just decisions must be free of prejudice. Prejudice against animals (i.e. treating humans above animals) is a form of discrimination, as it favors a species over another. This is referred to as speciesism. [6. Singer, Peter (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06171-130-5.] The animals given “healthy” lives in farms are bred for slaughter. If this is a sign of “give and take”, then giving birth is doing a favor to the newborn child, which is absurd. The lion gains food necessary for its survival, and is engineered by instinct. If humans lived primitive lives, et cetera, then it is justified by the definition of one life equals another, and the instinctive need for survival. In this case, the animal and the human are truly equal. Present-day primitive communities must be rehabilitated for the very purpose of justice. Con constantly disregards the resolution, that justice requires the recognition of animal rights. The resolution virtually says that animals and humans must be treated without discrimination. To defend animal rights, I do not need to demonstrate various moral entitlements of animals; as seen in Ob3, I must defend one right. I have defended the right against needless suffering on an equal basis to humans. These: “P1- Moral rights should be ascribed to all human beings equally, viz. infants and the mentally handicapped have equal moral and ethical rights as able-thinking adults. P2-Animals are not human beings. C-Therefore, moral rights should not be ascribed to animals” are flawed as it is not just human beings who deserve moral rights by the non-discriminative principle of justice and fairness by semantic definition. Conclusion I have defended one necessary right that must be ascribed to animals and have challenged societal definitions of morality being applied to animals. Via. my observations, I have fulfilled my Burden of Proof entirely to show that, regardless of utilitarian terms of rationality, the ethical obligations to animals must be fulfilled. Therefore, justice requires the recognition of animal rights. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. Humans violate morality by inflicting needless suffering (e.g. hunting) against animals and other humans. Therefore, in a fair community, my resolution remains affirmed. VOTE PRO! Con must waive Round 4.

You're right I still have not told you what my answer is. It is obviously I would choose the human but this debate is not about that. It is going about experimenting with animals if you do not understand you have to search the Internet then my point is that you are trying to divert the current topic to let me choose between the choice of race is obvious that I would choose my race. But it is very discriminatory on your part to tell me to choose because human or animal is to take a life and I am not the one to choose, So if you are going to speak it then face the issue of front saying why do you think this is right this is the only thing that you wonder is not asked you to make me choose between giving life or removing it, Examine your thoughts better. From Zareth To thort

I believe that animal testing is unjustified because of the cruelty of these testings. Most of the animals ends up their lives by being injected unsafe medicines into their body, and only a few percentage of them get a 'special privilege' of being euthanized. For instance, the commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. Moreover, some of the 'endangered' species designated by the CITES are used for animal testing, just for fast results and inexpensive prices. It is high time for us to stop this unneccessary, crazy act in the globe.

Thank you Lee001 for setting this up and thank you in advance Toviyah for accepting. Full Resolution: Animals should have little to no rights. Animals: non-human, a living organisms with emotions and or can feel pain. Rights: deserved of moral or political treatment. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the the debate. 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil atmosphere at all times meaning including in the comment section of this debate. 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No bias. of the topic 7. The BOP is shared. 8. Debaters must follow this format: R1: Con: Lays down the rules.Pro: Opening statements and arguements. R2: Both Arguments and rebuttals R3: Both Arguments and rebuttals R4: Con: Closing statements, rebuttals and constructive criticism.Pro: Closing statements and constructive criticism. 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the rule breaking a full loss can be given. Thank you and good luck.

Rebuttal 1Before I start, I would like to say that it is YOUR duty to debate me within the text limits you are given; redirecting me to a New York Times article and expecting me to argue with it is beyond the boundaries of this debate. In all honesty, I do not need to read the New York Times article (however, I did), I only need to read what you referenced or cited. In the last argument, you cited the last sentence, so I refuted the last sentence. You say: "I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals. " No, you actually did not. You provided a link to an article and specified the text which supported your claim. I read the text you cited and then proceeded to rebut in my response. However, you now bring up another claim which you have deemed significant: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products. " Well, that's great. It's reasurring to know that humans have donated some of their cells. However, this only refutes animal testing in the future; while it may seem as if this new way of testing works now, we must still stick to testing on animals because we know this works. If we begin to jump at every opportunity to get around testing animals, we will begin cutting corners. Rebuttal 2You completely missed my main point about Google Images. Editing is not the same picture; in fact, the word 'editing' basically means altering a primary source or document, such as a picture. You are still using the Appeal to Emotion -- while these caged animals (most are actually mice) may seem very disheartening and immoral, you must remember that not only do you automatically retrieve negative portrayal of animal testing because of the negative connotation associated with the term (which you did not refute), these caged animals are being tested with medication ranging from curing headaches to saving lives. If you really believe that testing on mice is not worth saving a patient's life, then maybe the Appeal to Emotion just doesn't work. Rebuttal 3You ask, "How can mistreating an animal be acceptable? " I have answered this several times. It is acceptable because animal testing directly leads to medications being made safer, and thus more effectiveness in its use to cure human biological needs. This is why "mistreating" an animal can be acceptable. Calling me heartless will not help; I can similarly call you heartless for not wanting to help your fellow man. The Appeal to Emotion does not work when trying to argue logic. The definition of abuse is irrelevant, because we are discussing testing on animals, which does not necessarily imply abuse -- we are discussing the implications of testing medication on animals before its release to the public. We are not discussing whether a kid should be able to kill a stray cat for no reason. Let me now defend my syllogism.1. Human lives are more valuable than animal lives -- I don't understand how you believe this is false. They cannot just be "equal," when faced with a decision that forces you to choose one over the other. Either we test on animals (which, of course, is implying that they always face death, which is not the case) and we better our medication so that they do not cause vicious side effects, or we choose not to test on animals, which could mean medication is released to the public with little or no experimentation.2. Medication must be tested before release -- It seems we both agree this is true. However, you resort to advocating new ways (and thus, not necessarily reliable) and I advocate the use of a process which has shown to be an accurate representation of how a medication will affect a living being.3. The only available test subjects are live animals -- You actually disproved this point, congratulations. There are other ways, albeit risky and perhaps unreliable, processes to test medication. Like I said, it is better to stick with an experienced process that you can be absolutely satisfactory with than rely on new methods at the risk of several negative effects. Take into consideration, for example, the expression "better be safe than sorry. "4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals -- You don't seem to understand, and I truly don't mean to be condescending at all. This may be "voluntary," but the reliability, accessibility, etc. , are all factors in this new process you have used to support your argument. The reason we test on mice and other animals is because they are so biologically similar to humans -- if a human has the ability to heal from an experimental medication, a biologically similar creature will as well; the same goes for the inability to heal.5. Medication must be tested on animals -- I have proved my point. For future reference, I am not debating Mr. Barnaby Feder of The New York Times. I am debating you. Please, if you would like to illustrate a point from a reference, which is completely fine, make a point and cite it with the article so that I know exactly what to refute. Thanks for the debate, it has been a pleasure. Good luck as well.


Question: Should Animals be Utilized for Scientific and Commercial Experimentation?

The primary argument in favor of animal testing is that it assists scientists in discovering drugs and treatments that enhance medical care and health. A multitude of medical advancements have been facilitated by animal testing, such as cancer and HIV medications, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines, and numerous other therapies. Nonetheless, there are instances where the drugs are ineffective, and over 100 million animals have perished due to unsuccessful animal testing. What I'm suggesting is that without animal testing, humans would be at risk of serious illness or death resulting from a failed drug trial. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the ethical considerations and seek alternative methods to minimize the use of animals in testing. [source: http://www.peta.org...]

I equate animals living in a zoo with humans living in a city or suburb. If humans were given the chance to live on a deserted island they would be able to make their own laws, they wouldn't be imprisoned by the laws of society. However, they would also have to scavange for their own food, find clean water on their own and live without television, phones, computers and many of the other modern conviences we've grown used to. In a city we have all these conviences and the trade off is that we must follow the rules of society and participate in the social contract. I think that is a fair trade off and I believe that for the animals living in captivity it is a fair trade off to have their lives more comfortable. Not to worry MrMark, thanks for coming back promptly :) "It is the greater question as to whether or not the practice of putting animals in zoos is humane or not." (thank you for clarifying) The practice of putting animals in a zoo can often be inhumane as noted in my following - Although zoos claim to educate people and preserve species, many zoos do neither. Most zoo enclosures are quite small, and labels provide little information. Visitors are more interested in entertainment, often at the expense of the animals, than in educating themselves. The purpose of most zoos' research is to find ways to breed and maintain more animals and to increase their numbers. However, many of the animals housed in zoos are not endangered at all, nor are they being prepared for release into natural habitats. Zoos are full of animals that are commonly seen - such as mongooses, peacocks, wolves and ducks. Animals that could be released into wild, creating more space for endangered animals in the zoo. Research carried out by scientists show that animals are psychologically affected by the lack of space and the constant intrusion of people. The miserable living conditions in zoos and the lack of privacy often lead to animals indulging in abnormal behaviour known as 'zoochosis'. They bang their heads against the wall, bite cage bars and even bite their own limbs! "More than 60% of the animals in zoos have marks on their heads because of continuously banging their heads against the bar" says Indian animal rights activist, Maneka Gandhi. India has 64 fairly large zoos and another 194 are medium sized zoos. Statistics show that in all these zoos some 10-15 percent animals die every year. I apologize MrMark but I do not agree with your metaphor and I kind of think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. First of all, not to argue aspects irresolute but a city or a suburb has thousands of people with open space and many developments, zoos are not the same. By the same token, if a zoo released most of its animals into a nature habitat or back into its real habitat the zoo would have space for animals who need to be in zoos, the endangered ones. In addition, I doubt that there would be humans who would be openingly willing to go live on a deserted island - just as animals generally do not want to go live in a zoo. Though the intentions of zoo keepers and zoo owners are often wholesome and utilitarian they often do not pan out that way.

"We care about the environment and other animals species because they either directly or indirectly benefit us." -So if you believe this to be the case, then any points about the "natural rights" or "equality" of animals can be set aside. Whether animal testing is ethical or not is no longer a component of this debate from this viewpoint. "According to David Graham, associate director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety, an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans alone had heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal." According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) over 80 million people were prescribed rofecoxib (trade name Vioxx). When you consider that the "disastrous effects" of the drug were only present in less that one-fifth of a percent of patients receiving the drug, you have to wonder whether any study, animal or human, could have predicted its effects. "Drugs originate not from such [animal-based] tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design." -I believe you may have missed the point I was trying to make (lost among the rambling sentences of my last argument, I'll admit). The main purpose of animal toxicology testing (the kind of testing you are referring to when you mention how animal testing doesn't prevent drug disasters such as the thalidomide tragedy) is NOT to ensure the safety of a drug, but to try to uncover possible effects of a drug without administering it to humans. For example, if a drug is shown to cause brain damage in mice, then researchers would try to figure out exactly how the drug caused this damage. If it is determined that the drug would have the same effect on humans, then it would not be given to the public, however, if the damage is such that it would only appear in mice, or if the mice suffered no ill effects from the drug, then further testing would be conducted. Yes, it is true that the testing process we currently use is fallible, but so is any sort of testing, animal or human. And no testing is even more open to disasters such as the ones you describe. Scientists admit that animal testing is not the be-all and end-all method of determining whether a substance is toxic or not, it is merely a "preliminary" sort of screening for any drug. All the examples you state for drugs that produce different effects in animals are the exceptions. Animal testing with a variety of species and conditions will be quite accurate, just as any sort of human study will be more accurate with a large, representative sample. I also feel that in our debate we have neglected other kinds of animal-based research, such as in the relatively new fields of genetics and bio-engineering, focusing mainly on toxicology testing. In conclusion, animal testing is beneficial because it provides a safe way to test a drug, at least as a sort of preliminary test, without the excess cost and ethical concerns of human testing. Some research requires animal subjects, such as in determining how a gene will affect life-span or future generations, or for inter-species comparative studies. There are countless examples of medical and scientific breakthroughs that would never have occurred without animal testing practices. However, like anything, animal research is still a work in progress. Alternatives such as microdose testing may one day decrease our reliance on animal testing, but as of right now they are either too expensive or not completely developed to become substitutes, and I doubt that they will ever become reliable enough to do away with animal testing completely. Like I mentioned before, we can never be completely sure, and that is why we do testing like this: to compensate for any knowledge we don't know we lack.

<> I accept your definition of "animal". < question: Could you kill an animal to eat? >> Yes I can. I have done it many times as I hunt duck, deer, quail, dove, pheasant, hog, and geese. I also fish quite often, both freshwater and saltwater. < (www. youtube. com/watch? v=bJfXami4haU)>> That video, unfortunately, is true and it's terrible. However, not all food is grown in conditions like that, as they follow the rules and regulations for raising livestock. Seen at the following link: (. http://www.bffairrodeo.com...) 10. All exhibitors shall furnish necessary feed, grain, troughs, and water buckets for their animals & arrange for their care. Bedding will be furnished by the fair. 11. Entries limited to space available. 12. For livestock limits, see individual departments. 13. Exhibitors must keep their animals, barn area and grooming area clean or premium monies will be forfeited. 17. Exhibitors found to be using abusive practices and/or drugs on animals will be banned permanently from the fair. The fair will notify all fairs in Washington State of its decision. 5. Fair veterinarians will inspect all classes of livestock and poultry before they are exhibited to determine that the livestock and poultry show no clinical indications of contagious infectious disease and ectoparasites. 6. Fair veterinarians will reject any animal with infectious or contagious disease or ectoparasites. Exhibitors should be made aware that ringworm, warts, pink-eye, strangles, contagious ecthyma, scabies, lice, mites, ticks, and fleas fall into these categories. As you can see, what you saw in those videos was not always legal. Which means that we already are trying to stop atrocities such as that. If everyone followed the law, then those animals wouldn't be in those situations. Farmers and ranchers are required to keep their livestock in good health, well fed, and in sanitary conditions so to say that the majority are (as you seem to be inferring) being maltreated is not true. To save characters I will simply answer my opponent's points on her numbers, not quote them. >The Environment 1. However, the US also has to import agricultural crops as they do not make enough locally. So it takes about 127 calories of aviation fuel to bring 1 calorie of lettuce from the UK to here, 97 calories of aviation fuel to take 1 calorie of asparagus from Chile, and 66 calories of aviation fuel are consumed for every 1 calorie of carrot from South Africa. (. http://www.energybulletin.net...). Also, plants take up carbon dioxide in the air and reduce greenhouse gases. This means that as a vegetarian, you are destroying what is fixing our planet, while if you eat more animals you will be trimming down the root of the greenhouse gases. 2. Give me a non-biased link for this please. 3. Some of these grains, corn, and beans are grown specifically for livestock purposes. If there was no more livestock, a significant portion of farmers who use to sell food to the livestock would have a hole in their pockets. Efficiency is not an issue here, as humans are the number one priority for making food. This means that if the food amount started to get low then (assuming your statistics are true) livestock would become less profitable and crops would start to be grown instead. 4. If everyone was a vegetarian then more land would have to be cleared for crops. Crops aren't as good as holding soil as the previous vegetation of grasses, shrubs, and trees. The crops will also suck up the nutrients faster and over a couple years the productivity of the land would severely decrease. The farmers would then move on to the next land leaving a bare and desolate area behind. You can see proof of this in Africa with desertification and with the destruction of rain forests in South America. 5. The two major causes of losing the rainforests are poor farmers and corporations. Poor farmers need it to feed their families, but the corporations only for their own greed. These corporations constitute of both ranchers and farmers, depending on what part of the rainforest is being taken. Some areas are best for livestock and are used as such, yet others are used for crops. If either livestock or crops were to suddenly disappear, then the land would just be taken up by the other. This means that getting rid of livestock for crops would not decrease rainforest destruction. >Personal Health 6. I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, I believed a balanced diet is required for the upmost efficiency of one's health. 7. The only fat that is actually bad for you is transfat which is made artificially from humans. All other fats are simply stored calories. So to put it simply, the amount of fat you take in doesn't matter, only the amount of calories. The human body needs cholesterol to survive. "Cholesterol, a waxy substance produced by the liver and found in certain foods, is needed to make vitamin D and some hormones, build cell walls, and create bile salts that help you digest fat. " Although your body makes enough of cholesterol on its own having a little extra wont' kill you. It's like dessert, it's good in small quantities and okay to eat as long as you keep it under control. In fact, fats are required to live (. http://www.visionlearning.com...). 8. Once again, the balanced diet is more efficient for fat and protein intake. 9. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. Should we stop eating ice cream? People should be allowed to eat what they think tastes good as long as it doesn't interfere with the morality of society. Besides, meat contains many other essential vitamins "One way or another your body has to have protein, iron, calcium, enzymes, Vitamin B12 and amino acids every day. " Meat is the only substance that has ALL of these substances readily available for easy digestion (. http://www.powerofmeat.com...). 10. True, but many types of pesticides and other chemicals are used on plants to protect them that aren't used on animals. 11. Please post a link so I know what you're specifically talking about. I'm not going to look up your information for you. 12. Most bacteria and viruses are destroyed when cooked. So as long as your not eating your meat raw you should be okay. 13. Meat stays fresh for a long time as long as it's kept cool. 14. As do many diseases in animals. They will start to act sick, have diarrhea, and other symptoms of the specific disease. 15. Link please. 16. This is a gross overstatement by the media to sell their stories. It is much more likely for cancer to be caused by genetics, obesity, and physical inactivity. Plus "In fact, he says, the polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health — they actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis, and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as ingredients in paints and varnishes. " Soy beans are also believed to make carcinogenic substances when cooked. (. http://www.newtreatments.org...) 17. Only with improper care and illegal activity such as selling meat taken from a sick animal. >Personal Finances 18. Most vegetarians cook their foods and use vegatable oil to cook it which is extremely unhealthy. They also have a fat deficiency where the only fats they do get are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats. 19. They cost less because the food is smaller in quantity and calories. >Ethics 20. I love animals as well, in fact, I hope to become a veterarinarian. Not enough characters left, I will continue on your list in the next round.

Animals cloning is beneficial I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.Full ResolutionAnimals cloning is benefical. BoP is shared. Definitions Animals: "... A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly... Any such living organism other than a human being. Clone: the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organismBeneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in goodWhat i am biscally saying is that animal cloning is beneficial for the human race. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...

I will debate against the resolve animal testing is good.Animal testing is not good but also wrong.Animal testing means using an animal for testing purpose, whether it is medical or science. You take a harmless animal away from its natural habitat and then force drugs or machine on it. After testing, the animals are then killed and is disposed. Many animals have been used and brutally disposed off in the progress.In addition, animal testing isn't reliable. Drugs' effects are varied from species to species. For example, aspirin is a very safe pain-killing drugs that has been used for many years by humans. However, aspirin is extremely toxic to cats and dogs and can cause possible deaths [1]. My third argument is that no matter how much testing we done on animals, we will eventually have to test it on human. Drugs that proves safe on animals can still have hidden side effects on human. The Food and Drug administration has determined 92% of the drugs that have proven safe and successfully tested on animals is considered ineffective or dangerous in human trials. [2][1]http://goo.gl...[2]http://goo.gl...

Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings.

Computers are well and good for something that can be predicted but when you are working with something new and unprecedented it is better to stick with something that you know will be 100 percent accurate, and as for Epsikin it has less than 10% of the natural proteins found in skin and even if it had 100 percent of them and functioned perfectly how would we be able to test the drugs effects on the other processes found in the body? The delay you mentioned might be irreversibly fatal and think of all the deaths that could have been prevented if you had just tested it on something with a pulse and in the process probably helped the animal that was tested and the future ones how about the risk of one for the betterment of the many. Plus with all the aforementioned benefits of animal testing money seems like the least of the reasons to continue using this method of testing.

Minor RebuttalsDirect quotation(R3):"On B12 deficiency: Yes many vegans are deficient, so are many meat eaters."But a higher percent of vegans have b12 defficiancy, which was my point. This quote does nothing.Direct quotation(R3):"They imply that animals are inferior to us...So what?"Pro concedes to the fact that humans are superior to animals, please keep this in mind. On the "so what?" part, I typed up that argument to prove that animals don't deserve the same rights as us.Direct quotation(R3):"All animals are sentient, so there is no excuse to abuse them, any more than a Nazi had an excuse for the holocaust."I will reiterate what I said in R1, Jews are superior to animals because they are human, so yes the Nazi's had no excuse. It is also time to stop comparing killing animals to eat and killing people just cause. Direct quotation(R3):"It doesn't matter if it involves a dog, cow, rat, ant, or whale. Animal abuse is animal abuse. Just because it involves bacon, doesn't change that."Pro doesn't seem to understand that it does matter a lot. Killing animals because someone wants to is not the same as killing an animal for food. 20 point I cannot justifyPro presented 20 points on how we abuse animals, and most of these points are completely irrelevant in the context of this debate. I will now proceed to justify or refute every one of these points. Also note that PRO cites a grand total of 0 sources for these points.We brand cows without painkiller.Branding is only commonly used in small farms, when the threat of your livestock being stolen if a reality. In large companies, who produce most of the meat, branding is usually dropped for ear tags. Furthermore, branding only hurts for a second at most, then the end of the nerves are burnt(they come back) off, so you cannot feel pain. This information comes from humans who have been branded.We rape them with bull semen.Rape is defined as "unlawfulsexualintercourseor ..."(the rest is irrelevant)(1). This is not against the law, so it cannot be rape.We clip their ears without painkiller.Ear clipping is not used now, ear tags are much more common because they can provide much more information than a clipping.We often keep them in horrible living conditions.They are animals, we owe nothing to them.We milk them to exhaustion.If we didn't milk them their udders would swell, I understand this is because we take away their calves, but we need to Milk them.We hang them upside down and slash their throats till they bleed out in a slaughterhouse.They are unconscious during this process and do not feel anything.We cut the teeth off of baby pigs, so they don't bite each other.We do not cut off the entire tooth, and this helps prevent injuries. Cutting the tooth is now dying and is not being used except when the mother is not giving milk well, causing the piglets to fight, which may lead to death.We also rip off their testicles.They cannot feel anything during this process, we also do this to our pets, ect. There isn't anything wrong with this.We kill pigs with a bolt gun. (yes, a fast death, but would you want that to happen to you?)This is sure better then getting killed by a tiger.We cut the beaks off of chicks.This is to prevent fights and cannibalism. This helps save other chicken's lives.We shred the male chicks alive into dog food.The chicks die instantly.We decapitate chickens on a conveyor belt.The chickens, again, die instantly.Other times we gas the animals we want to kill.We do this to paralyze the animals, this is similar to taking laughing gas which, as you all know, does not hurt.We go hunting, shoot innocent animals, and take pictures with their corpse as if it is something to be proud of.If you have a good enough shot to kill an animal, then that is something to be proud of. Anyways the animals that are hunting are being eaten. If they aren't then it's hunting for sport, which is irrelevant in this debate about veganism.Animals are handled with cattle prods.If the animal's don't listen, then we have to do something. And we are not sure if it hurts, because cow skin is more that 2 times thicker then ours.Circus animals are slaves, as are dairy cows.This debate is about Veganism, so circus animals are irrelevant. As for cows, they do not need to work, so they are not slaves.Minks are other animals have their necks snapped to be made into fur coats.This debate is about Veganism, so this point is irrelevant.We test harmful products on animals.This debate is about Veganism, so this point is irrelevant.We skin cows for leather.The cows are already dead, also this debate is about Veganism, so this point is irrelevant.We catch fish with painful hooks, drown them in the air and beat them against rocks.Wow such an amazing point! One flaw though, fish can't feel pain or suffer.(2)For these reasons, I urge you to vote Pro.Citation1.http://www.dictionary.com...2.https://www.sciencedaily.com...

Animalsare just like humans they have feeling sjust ike us so they need to think double time on that ok like i said before they need help because the only reason they should kill animals is when the are hurt and need to be put down. so ya im just getting started on this so if you culd help me out i would greatle thank you.

OK, great argument. However, as the opponent has mentioned that ' Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented?', and also asked about the other ways we can test our new medicines, I would like to mention an alternative that would not harm neither human nor animals. First, the Episkin. The Episkin, a manmade skin developed in a science lab, is 99% same as a real human skin, while scientists can also control the dryness of this material, either. The reaction to new substances are not so quick as animals, but it is still highly potential if we think about the invaluable lives of animals. Second, the online experiment using computer programs. We are living in a developed, 'digital information era', which we can use this small and intelligent friend called 'computers'! Why we aren't using this program in the testing process? Just for the quick results and less prices. It is time for us to use 'advanced' computing programs and high-tech materials while testing instead of this inhumane animal-testing act.