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

The use of animals for testing is not justified by their consumption or hunting; both are equally unjustifiable.

The fact that some humans consume and hunt animals does not legitimize the use of animals for testing. A fundamental belief in the animal rights movement is that any harm inflicted on animals is wrong, particularly when viable alternatives are readily available. It is therefore fallacious to argue that since eating and hunting animals is not widely condemned, animal testing should not be criticized. In reality, both practices are met with significant opposition from animal rights advocates. The consumption of meat and hunting cannot be used to shield the unethical practice of animal testing.

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. 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. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 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. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.

Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food. Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines. The problem with this is that the animals will not be likely to be treated like living things anymore. According to http://www.farmsanctuary.org... factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming. Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity According to the National Geographic Magazine March 2013, in around 1999 Spanish scientists tried to revive the Pyrenean ibex. They implanted 57 implantations in surrogate mothers. Only 7 were pregnant. And of those pregnancies’ , six ended in miscarriages. The one ibex clone that came out died after 10 minutes it was born, due to a deformation in a lung. Past experiences show cloning is an unreliable technology. Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct. Refutation 4: Biomedical Research As I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works. Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage (and the company haven’t made any clones yet), I don’t think cloning dead pets counts as an argument. Maybe if they (by this I mean the private cloning companies) actually succeeded in creating one, I’ll see it as an argument. Also, I don’t think it’s right to want to have another identical pet. I mean, there are stray dogs and cats in shelters all around the world. It’s better to just adopt one than spend a ton of cash on recreating a pet. Maybe more than a ton of cash, because you will have to spend money on the bad health of the clone you bought… Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”.

My opponent makes two really simple, really flawed points. But before I start with them, I want to make a quick point. All of his arguments use statistics and other claims that he never sources at all. There's no way to actually verify he's telling the truth in this case. Insofar as he didn't do that, you're prefering my arguments over his because I'm at least providing citations and sources to voters so they can verify I'm being honest. And, don't let him just make up for it in the next round by retroactively providing them since I don't have another round to respond to them, which makes it inherently unfair for him to just save arguments and sources until I don't get a chance to respond to them. Animal Testing is cruel/inhumane:First, ignore his cosmetic testing example. I'll concede that animals should not be tested for the safety of different cosmetic products, but rather only should they be tested on for medical reasons (i.e. the development of different medicines/vaccines/techniques). Second, turn this argument in my favor. Animal testing gives us what we need to fight diseases and sickness in both animals and humans, leading to the reduction of pain and suffering for both animals and humans. I solve for long-term suffering. Still (1): "Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ... Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering. In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of ... animals. ... Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases."Third, his argument is just untrue. We do everything we can to ensure that animals aren't harmed and don't suffer. Still continues:"The USDA and National Institutes of Health regularly inspect research institutions to verify the well-being and care of animals ... animals used in research do not suffer more pain or distress than animals outside the lab. In fact, lab animals often receive the best of care because of their value to researchers. Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. ... only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits. ... Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs." Fourth, even if you buy his argument that animals are suffering from testing, the affirmative doesn't provide a single reason why this isn't something that can't be solved back for by proposiong tougher restrictions and oversight on animal research to make sure that any experimentation on animals involves the absolute minimual amount of suffering, if any suffering even needs to be inflicted, and that the suffering is applied in a humane fashion. Just because the way it's being performed in the status quo isn't optimal, that doesn't justify doing away with the entire system. That's like saying you need to buy a new car because you're headlights are starting to get dimmer. Just fix the faulty parts and you're golden.Fifth, there's no impact to his speciesism argument. All he says is that "Grrrr don't be speciesist, you speciesist!" like it's some fancy buzzword that awards him free elo. He's not actually giving any kind of reason why speciesism is bad, which becomes problematic since speciesism is just irrelevant. The "hunter in the woods" analogy is a good example of this: imagine you and you're hunting dog are out in the woods and you stumble across a rather angry bear. You're faced with two choices: run and have the bear catch you and kill you since you're dog is going to outrun you, or sic your dog on the bear and run. The choice isn't even debatable; as much as you love your dog and care about its wellbeing, we all inherently prefer our own wellbeing over the wellbeing of other animals. Sixth, his comparison between animals and the mentally challenged is faulty. There are certain categories that distinguish between the two. Frey (2):"to include the baby by means of the potentiality argument: the baby is potentially rational. ... to include the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the similarity argument: in all other respects except rationality and perhaps certain mental accomplishments, the severely mentally-enfeebled betray strong similarities to other members of our species ... One might try to include both babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the religious argument: babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled possess immortal souls. ... the religious argument does separate both from Fido, who is not conceded an immortal soul by the argument's proponents."Seventh, we can't place animals on the same level as humans because they are incapable of grasping ethical premises, which makes them unable to enter a community of moral agents. Cohen (3):"Patterns of conduct are not at issue. Animals do ... exhibit remarkable behavior at times. Conditioning, fear, instinct, and intelligence all contribute to species survival. Membership in a community of moral agents nevertheless remains impossible for them. Actors subject to moral judgment must be capable of grasping the generality of an ethical premise in a practical syllogism. Humans act immorally often enough, but only they ... can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to he performed. The moral restraints imposed by humans on themselves are thus highly abstract and are often in conflict with the self-interest of the agent. Communal behavior among animals ... does not approach autonomous morality in this fundamental sense. Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed ... is done with a guilty mind" Alternatives to Animal Testing: First, even if he's winning that there are better alternatives to animal testing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't test. Just because there's a better way to get to work than walking (i.e. driving is preferable to walking) doesn't exclude walking from being a way we can travel to work. Second, alternatives just don't replace animal testing. Murali (4): "The list of proposed alternatives to animal research proposed in the article calling for an end to it include prevention programs, epidemiological studies, autopsies, in vitro research in cell cultures and computer modelling. The first three are not alternatives at all. They don’t actually lead to the development of novel treatments, just a better understanding of the efficacy of existing ones. Meanwhile the last two are already commonly used in most labs, but prior to and in conjunction with work with animals. 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."This has two impacts: one, that his proposed alternative of in vitro testing doesn't actually replace animal research, but rather is used in conjunction with it, so that's not actually a reason to get rid of animal testing, and two, that no current alternatives are as viable as animal testing is at present.Third, his claim that animals are bad test subjects to compare to humans is just blatantly false. Murali continues:"Researchers are very aware that animals aren’t people. Obviously animal responses aren’t the best possible predictor of treatment effects or side-effects in individual humans. But, what most scientists study are evolutionarily conserved physiological processes, that is, processes that are similar across different species. 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. Far from treating animals like small humans, individual animal models and even strains within individual animals are analysed many times over for their suitability to the research being done, and constantly improved until the best possible parallel is found. One strain of mouse, for instance, is very good for replicating a human-like pathology of asthma compared to others that barely develop any signs of respiratory illness. Instead of rejecting all mouse models of asthma as useless, researchers choose the strain that allows them to best approximate the problem."Sources:(1) - Tom Still [Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison].Animal testing: Beyond the protests, instances of mistreatment are rare. WTN News. http://wtnnews.com... (2) - R. G. Frey. Animal Rights. Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun., 1977), pp. 186-189. Oxford University.(3) - Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October 1986, pp. 865–870.(4) - http://theconversation.com...;

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical. Contention 1: Rights and Preferences A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated. Pigs and cows are NOT self-aware. Self-awareness is assessed most effectively with the mirror test (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). Dolphins, chimpanzees, and a few others have passed the test and are therefore considered self-aware. Pigs and cows have not passed. Yes, they can feel pain, but that is a different matter. ======== Contention 2: The Moral Imperative A.) My opponent should not overpower me and take my money because if he does so, it will sow distrust. He may go to jail. More directly, though, no one will trust him and he will be hurt in the long run. A person may feel that it is morally wrong to rob someone at gunpoint, but this feeling originates out of a selfish desire to continue to be accepted in a community. Slavery has a similar problem. Rape as well: women do not want to be raped, so even if you rape one time you will get the reputation of a rapist and women will avoid you, so overall you will have fewer children. The reader may feel that these things are morally wrong, and that is correct. But this is the reason why they are wrong. I ask the reader to step outside of the evolutionary directive and understand WHY we consider these behaviors to be wrong. It is not truly because they are harmful to others; it is because they have social repercussions. I am perfectly aware of the workings of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that we should follow the moral imperative simply because it is natural. I am saying that we should follow it because the fact that it is natural makes it the only true option. All other options are arbitrary and artificial. Subsequently, how can we even hope to define morality without at least basing it upon our evolutionary roots? B.) The analogy is inapplicable. It is impossible to put a human brain into a chimpanzee without completely changing the brain structure. But false analogies aside, the brain is a large part of what makes us human. A chimpanzee with a human brain would be more human than chimpanzee. ======== Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering A.) I'm not playing around. My opponent has just conceded for the second time. My opponent provided no definitions in round 1. Is it my fault that he was using an unconventional definition of "animal"? No. My definition is the one which will be accepted. B.) Ethics do not have to perfectly model reality. It is easily conceivable that there is a scenario in which animals are painlessly euthanized. There is nothing morally wrong with this. My opponent objects to factory farms; it is true that factory farms are very common right now, but euthanasia is still entirely possible. "If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering." This is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self-awarely considering the future. Humans have a truly conscious desire not to die. Animals merely have evolutionary directives. ======== Contention 4: Source of Morality My opponent misunderstands the true source of morality. This has been addressed in contention 2. ======== Case Pro ======== (These are not contentions. This is a syllogism. However, I will retain my opponent's labeling system.) Contention #1: Agreed. Contention #2: Wrong. This is addressed repeatedly in my case. Contention #3: False, since #2 is false. Contention #4: False. See my second contention. Contention #5: True, but irrelevant.

"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.

RebuttalWhile many animals die because of animal testing each year, you cannot only look at the negatives of animal testing (though I realize that is your intention in a debate). Animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or even death due to their testing -- even if all of them did, you must prioritize your value on life. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Would you rather the testing animal die, or a man on his deathbed who needs a certain medicine which must be verified first? You say there are other ways to advance in science (I assume you mean the advance of experimental medicine) than placing "chemicals on innocent animals. " This is a faulty claim. These medicines must be verified that they actually work in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. You even claim we can "test it on a dead corpse" -- you completely miss the point of testing experimental medicine on animals. Testing on a corpse whose bodily functions have ceased to work is pointless. The medicine must be tested on an immune system that can respond in a realistic fashion. You then go on to list reasons for "killing animals" -- again, the argument is on animal testing, which does not necessarily mean death -- "because we can, there are 'too many', and we think it's okay. " You have again missed the point of animal testing. We do not test experimental medicine on animals BECAUSE we have the ability, population control, or morality. We do it to advance medicine which could potentially save lives. Animal medicine testing is not used for population control, and we do not do it merely because we have the ability or find it moral; we do it for a very practical reason. Then you proceed on a tangent about animal abuse, which is irrelevant. ConclusionSeveral important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. You must understand before we go any further that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it helps us save lives.

"When we see a cat purring or a dog wagging its tail in joy,we shouldn't expect that it"s feeling what we are feeling when we experience joy",Joseph Ledoux ,a neuroscientist at New York University,said on Feb.18 of previous year in a talk at the American Association for the advancement of science annual meeting."I"m not saying other animals don"t have feelings,just that they are different between different species of animals".With this quotes in mind I strongly affirm to the resolution:RESOLVED:HUMANS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ANIMALS. Anytime you approach a topic it"s important to begin by defining the key terms.With this being said,I would like to give the definition of the following key words that will be use in today"s round frequently: HUMAN,FUNDAMENTALLY. Human: Defining living organisms has long been an area of scientific inquiry. One way to do this is based on their morphology or their physical structure.Human morphology is simply understood as being a bipedal [walking upright on two legs] primate.However,the history of scientific attempts to define animals shows why our physical structure is not viewed as the core principle of being human.When Linnaeus named each animal genus Homo he simply wrote "nosce te ipsum" a latin phrase meaning "know thyself".And this classification is going to be attempt throughout this case and with that being said saying humans are unique . With that being said,there are features of defining humans that we must consider in today"s mind.If they are unique or not? Or what made them fundamental? Fundamentally: my definition for fundamentally is categorized into three categorizes: vague definition, specific definition, and context-specific definition. Vague definition: fundamentally defined as "in a very important or basic way (macmillan dictionary) or "in a way that affects the essentials" (dictionary.com). Specific definition: fundamentally is defined as "belonging to one"s innate or ingrained characteristics"(merriam-webster),"serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function"(merriam-webster), and used for emphasizing for basic nature of something"(macmillan). Context-specific: In the late 1800"s,Charles Darwin posited one of his most famous claims in The Descent of man:"there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties" and that all the difference of degree,not of kind".

While it would be nice to allow animals to roam free, it is not logical in today's society. 1) Animals spread disease2) Humans Eat Meat3) The Ecosystem can no longer support it.I am going to make a few assumptions in order to make this argument valid. the first one is you want humans to live and not go into the stone age. Or else how can you log on to debate.org? The second is that you value human life over animal life. Those "Fillthy Animals?"Antrhax, Rabies, Hydatiosis(worms), Leptopirosiss, the black plague... Just to name a few disesas are some wonderful gifts from ou animal friends. Allowing animals to have a right to roam around in their natural environment left alone to romp around with no human intervention will just set us up for a battle of survival against diseseas. Animal control and monitoring allows us to prevent diseases such as these from spreading and becoming a major issues in the human world.

yes thats true and all but there is alot of reasons we sould treat humans like dogs well dog like humans 1. humans have brains and dogs also have brains. 2. e walk on 2 legs they walk on 4 thats1 thing we dont have in common with them. 3.o.k you are proeley ging to wi this debate but im going to try and win this debate so i can get better at this. o.k humans are bigger than dogs so thats y we dont put them down because wehave been working with humans for years and for years to come. dogs on the other hand we have only been woking with them for only about a year now and we are getting better with dogs so maybe in 3 4 yeRS we wil be abe 2 not kill dogs and work on them like we work on human. if you can tell i love dogs alot and i dont like seeing dgs going trew pain. tanks for helping me get more info and helping me debate

Thank you for acknowledging my argument. Animals in cosmetics research is used to prove the cosmetic products are safe for consumers. There are viable alternatives to animal testing when developing cosmetics even though the United States is largely behind in adopting them. The European Union has already banned animal testing with cosmetics and the UK has made significant progress. With America's strict consumer safety laws it is unlikely that we will adopt alternatives in the near future.


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

The cessation of animal testing in a responsible manner will not hinder progress in medical research.

**Question**: Should the death penalty be allowed?

**Documents**: Death penalty
Capital punishment is a necessary evil to deter heinous crimes.

**Similar Documents**: The death penalty, though morally questionable, serves as a deterrent for the most heinous of crimes.

**Question**: Should college education be free for all students?

**Documents**: College education
Providing free college education to all students would be an investment in the future of the country.

**Similar Documents**: Offering free college education to every student would be a wise investment in the nation's future.

**Question**: Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

**Documents**: Voting age
Lowering the voting age to 16 would increase youth participation in politics.

**Similar Documents**: Reducing the voting age to 16 would encourage greater political engagement among young people.

I. Religious GroundsA. I remarked that many other religious have similar verse I can not in the short space quote from every holy text. Laws are not universally accepted either. They are vastly different from many countries so this is neither a solid answer on ethics.B. The difference is being a good leader or boss. The responsibility of Dominion is not void of mercy and caring, and is not indicative of being harsh. It is the proper weighing of all situations. Some of which may be detrimental to a subordinate or to oneself.C. The value of human life over that of a sparrow is not an excuse for abusive dominion of animals. And I already agreed the money spent and energy spent on pets that results in over population, more animal abuse, and more human abuse is unethicalII. You didn't make this distinction before in your first or second round. And it is not evident in your resolution. I feel my arguments still stand as refuting your statement. Certainly the line for a functional animal like livestock is more black and white than my cat. My cat is a pet. I enjoy her company and she enjoys mine. She will on occasion yelp and scratch at the door just to see me for a few minutes and play with a turf of grass or my hat. This line is not as cut and dry as employee and employer. So no they are not simply functional. It's a healthy symbiotic relationship. Emotional as well as functional. Animals have personalities and I have to be aware of her personal needs just as much as her physical needs. It's those bonding moments that reinforce her confidence, and social standing in the home.How would you classify pets for terminally ill children or dogs for PTSD veterans? pets in the very sense of the word.Your assertion, " it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly". Is such a subjective measure. You are paying for entertainment and Internet. This money could go to helping impoverished humans. Where is the rightful percentage of how much to spend on others, and how much of the money you work for can ethically be spent on yourself. You have given no argument to where this line is. Let's say it is 10% to charity. Then once that 10% is met, a person is ethically allowed to spend the money on a pet or a movie. I would argue that people are selfish and many more people would be impoverished if a society made such rules. Who would work hard to make more money for any luxury if it was outlawed as being a needless expense. Not to mention that a society like that would quickly lobby for me to switch to rat poison instead of having my "functional pet."

Thank you for the interesting and compelling rebuttal, Con. I.Religious Grounds A.Religion is not a system of universally applicable ethics. Not only is each religion's general view of diverse ethical situations vastly different, but also each individual's interpretation of what their god deems correct varies. This sliding scale of morality cannot be considered authoritative when considering a universal ethical question. This is why we have law that supersedes preference. B.Dominion Vs. Benevolence In your citation of Genesis 1:26 you fail to make the distinction between man having dominion over animals (man's hierarchical place in the world) and man showing undue benevolence to animals. This passage is more often cited by anti-vegans then pet advocates for its meaning. No ethical system could defend unwarranted cruelty and abuse of animals, but that does not place any burden on man to proactively care for them (especially above their own kind). C.Luke 12 Granted, Luke 12:6 says that God values the life of a sparrow. However, the very next verse states that human life is worth more than that of any sparrow (or animal for that matter). If anything, this verse justifies my claim above yours. II.Symbiotic Relationships Ultimately, there is a definitive difference between a functional animal and a pet. A functional animal may be used as food (the meat industry, the eggs of chickens), your cat (in its propensity as an exterminator), or a seeing-eye dog (to guide the blind). These are not pets any more than employees are children. They are simply functional. I suggest that it is unethical to have pets because they serve no purpose, and it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly. Overall, my assertion still stands. My values prevail, as my opponent has yet to produce evidence to justify the ownership of a pet for recreational purposes as having some value to supersede the preservation of human life.

I can't say I've ever seen anyone fail to respond to as many points their opponent brings up as you just have. Every claim and argument I have presented has been ignored besides one. So be it. I leave it to the judges to decide whether the claims I've made have merit. I submit my opponent fails to bring them up because she possesses no argument against them. I don't know why she would otherwise fail to address them. This debate has 10k character limit. She had plenty of room remaining. 1. Valuing Humans over Other Species I can't help but notice you also did not respond to the situation I've presented. If you had to choose between pushing a button to kill a human or 2 deer at gunpoint, Which would you choose? What about a human or 10 deer? I submit that if you fail to address this again the judges should know that the answer is in opposition to the point you seek to submit to us. If you act as you say and value the life of animals the same as a human, The choice between 1 deer or 1 human would be a difficult one for you, Much less 2+ on one side. People in vegetative states from accidents are not persons anymore. We kill them all the time. There's no reason not to. Those who were born or have significant impairments can still often do intellectual things animal cannot. Largely, We assume they have sentient thought and consciousness because we do. Again, Intelligent animals shouldn't be experimented on. There's nothing wrong with less intelligent animals being experimented on. Morals are all arbitrary to some extent. We have to justify them. You're telling me that putting value on intelligence and critical thinking is a worse line than a line you fail to specify. You've brought up 1. Pain and 2. Life. Neither of these are better lines than intelligence inherently. I have already been over this. Life is not unique to the animal kingdom. According to the logic you currently use, Why value an animal life over an insect or a plant? Pain is also not unique to the animal kingdom, And I've addressed it as well. I presume you wouldn't stop valuing a person that could not feel pain. The problem you bring up with my valuing the capacity for sentient thought, Critical thinking, Consciousness, Et cetera, Is that I have to value some humans above others? While this is not necessary for the sake of the argument (animal experimentation and valuing all humans above most other animals) it is easy for me to remain consistent on this. Yes, If given the choice between killing a dumb human and an intelligent one if I had no other information about the individuals the choice would be easy for me. It wouldn't take a second of consideration. I would kill the dumb individual instead. This is hardly controversial. In critical situations we would preserve doctors and scientists instead of laypeople. There's not much of a need for this to come into play. The world has enough resources for us to take care of all humans, And little research necessarily requires human sacrifices. There are already humans that sign up to be test subjects and are compensated for this kind of thing, And animals that can take the fall for even the most lowly human. My values are consistent. Are yours? I have seen no sign of consistency from you. I will appreciate your position and agree with your hold on it if you show that you are consistent, But I don't even know what you specifically value at this point. Your thoughts are unclear. Do you value life itself? Persons? Pain? You are throwing out many terms and condemning a well-thought position while failing to present a clear idea of something which I or the readers could replace it with. So please, Tell us what YOU value, And answer the question. 2 deer or 1 human? The rest of my claims and arguments still stand. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

Sigh. .. it would seem that Pro still hasn't learned his lesson. His argument from THIS round is copied from here - . http://www.slate.com... . I'm really getting tired of this. Why should I have to respond to arguments that Pro has just stolen from another source? And yes, once again it's plagiarism, because Pro hasn't even told us where he stole his new arguments from. If Pro really feels strongly about this issue, then perhaps he should actually come up with his own arguments. I would like to point out that regardless of whether you think me or my opponent did a better job, the voting criteria clearly states that the arguments should be their own. Since Pro has not presented any of his own arguments, then he has really provided no arguments at all, and thus has failed to uphold the resolution. Having looked at the source that Pro's plagiarised argument provides it is actually a distortion. In actual fact, the report emphasises many times that in the vast majority of cases the seals are rendered unconscious and that in the small amount of cases that the skull is not crushed completely, the seals will most likely have been bled unconscious anyway. For instance, 'during the hunt in the Gulf in 1999, which was carried out mainly with the use of hakapiks, Bollinger and Campbell examined a minimum of 225 carcasses of beaters. At least 220 of these carcasses were of animals that had been killed prior to the observers' arrival on the ice floes. Skulls of all but 4 (1.8%) carcasses had multiple depressed fractures of the calvarium, with massive destruction of the underlying cerebral cortex'. It goes on to say that the remaining four were probably rendered unconscious after being struck anyway - . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . 2. This is ridiculous. As already pointed out, ragged jackets look very similar to suckling pups. Otherwise, this is just a play on emotions. I imagine I could do the same with any animal after dead and make the audience feel sorry for it. The creature isn't suffering anymore because it's in that state. 3. Attacking your sources is perfectly legitimate even if you hadn't plagiarised from them. 4. Uh huh. And.

Umm... I... think... that you have either missed the posting-argument deadline, or really gave up this debate...? (Did you gave up..? :O Anyway, since I have nothing to rebut(Since you didn't post your argument), I'd just like to leave a burden that you'll have to answer in this 4th round. According to the Math/Science Magazine 'Newton', the probability of getting money for 3 consecutive times in a original roulette is 0.1%, while the probability of making a new vaccine from an animal testing is 0.016%. Do you really want to make these little creatures be tied in labs just with this low 'gambling'?

Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for "humans". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated.

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.

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.

What if you are the animal getting tested do you rather die or hurt really badly ? DO you feel ashamed of yourselves ? Does Sacrifice to me you're healthy

What is just? In some cases the animal that wasn't killed for the sake of sentiment was also the same animal that could have fed 10 people before they perished. I assume you are referring to domesticated animals and animals that are used for furs and other bodily accessories. In such case, to what degree of suffering do you find unjust, simply killing the animal or skinning it alive and leaving it in cages to rot from infections? Please clarify.


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

Animals may react differently to testing than humans do. Marymoose, in her article "The Case Against Animal Testing" published on Helium, states that a primary argument against using animals in research is that such studies cannot definitively validate or invalidate hypotheses about human biology or disease. Simply put, it can be contended that only human-based research is truly applicable to humans.

It is to my pleasure that we have finally arrived at the core of this topic: the definition of morality. But before I make an attack on that area, I must first address the apparent incongruences and contradictions in my opponent's arguments. Now that we have both agreed that both the utility of animal experimentation, and whether we should ban it or not, are not relevant issues, I will consider all his points in regards to utility as irrelevant. What I will now examine is his moral arguments only. My opponent had initially used a moral defense that had its basis on utilitarianism, all of which boil down to these three basic points. Point 1) The magnitude of the lives saved is larger than the ones sacrificed during the experiment. (Or as I call it the 'moral math' argument)Point 2) Use of animals is the only realistic viable solution for the problem of consent. Point 3) A human life weighs more than an animal life. In the last round, he contradicted himself on all three of these points, which I will now elaborate upon. He first conceded that number of lives is not the deciding factor for morality. It is curious that he accuses me of using a false analogy on the Hitler-Stalin example. I had used the Hitler vs Stalin example precisely because I had aimed to exhibit that the number of lives taken is not a relevant factor in deciding whether Hitler was less immoral than Stalin. His answer to my rhetorical question was that it is the intention of mass killing that is relevant, not the number, and in doing so, contradicted his claims on his use of number of lives for moral judgment. While he mentions all other mitigating factors, he had not mentioned these mitigating factors initially when he presented his model, which leads me to the conclusion that he introduces these factors as a means to hide his contradiction. For his second point, I had formed it into a question to ask back at my opponent, for which he stated that being realistically viable is not a valid moral defense. Hence he rejects the relevance of his second premise in judging the morality of the act at hand. The third premise is contradicted when he responds to my example of the movie The Island, where human clones are created for organ harvesting. He stated that he finds both the breeding of human clones in the movie and the oncomice and transgenic pigs a moral equivalent. I believe the life of a human clone can safely be considered a human life, so I can also safely assume that he has unintentionally conceded that human and animal lives are moral equivalents. Those are not the only flaws in his argument, however. In light of his accusations of my analogies as ‘false’, it is interesting that he makes a false analogy of his own: the injection analogy. This analogy fails because both the victim and the beneficiary happens to be the same subject. What is interesting is that this point actually fits perfectly with my separation of the moral cause and immoral act. The lack of consent, and the intrusion into the body with foreign material does pose a small immoral act. Yet the moral cause is overwhelmingly beneficial to the subject that the immoral act can be overlooked. This only occurs because the receiving end is also the one making concessions. But this is not the case here. The one being damaged are the non-humans, and the ones who reap the benefits are humans, or as I have previously asserted, those affiliated with human interests. As much as my opponent states that the rodent species benefits from human research, as long as humans cannot communicate or educate the rodent community of these pearls of wisdom, no realistic benefits occur on the rodent community, which for sake of non-human parties exclude pets. This creates an asymmetry of information and power, and it is of no actual dispute that the rodent population suffers more than it gains from animal experimentation. Now I must make my advance on his notion of “contextual morality. ”While this model of relative morality may seem apparently valid, it carries a fundamental flaw that my opponent cannot avoid: the relative nature of ‘context. ’The use of ‘context’ makes it implausible to make a moral judgment. Context is relative. The same context can yield different moral conclusions. Let us take my opponent’s lion example. The lion’s prey has its own rights to life, while the lion of course has it too. The lion’s defense for its actions is that in order to live, he must hunt others to survive. The prey’s moral attack will be that it too has its own rights to live. Who then has the moral high ground? Considering the chain of consumption in the biosphere, this is a very pertinent question. If one party’s moral right is in clash with another's, in my opponent’s model of morality, we cannot determine which moral standard – the prey’s or the predator’s – supersedes the other. This means that we can either make no judgments on all killings of prey, or conclude that all killings are inherently immoral. As this debate is contingent upon a moral decision, it is safe to assume that by necessity we must assume that there exists an absolute moral standard whose jurisdiction stretches beyond the boundaries of each species, even if that species is the Homo sapiens. This completely validates my approach in morality: the separation of the morality of the act and the cause (or perhaps intentions broadly). This is in line with our legal understanding of murder, for example. While the act itself is considered a violation, the punitive measures against it is evaluated according to the morality of the cause and intentions. If the immoral act is determined to carry an intention of self-defense, punishments cannot be made, for example. My opponent has – unintentionally – conceded that an animal life is a moral equivalent to a human life. He has also conceded that an alternative is experimentation on humans. Using an anthropocentric view, he assumes an a priori knowledge that this is inherently immoral, which I, as a fellow human, agree wholeheartedly. Then I have also shown that if human experimentation is immoral, animal experimentation is equally immoral. One cannot be more immoral than the other. With that, I hand the debate over to my opponent.

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.

In previous ROUNDS, I showed that animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advancement of the last century, for both human and animal health, and that this research is partially responsible for extending the human lifespan; that animal research has directly led to better understanding in the life-cycle of living disease-spreading pathogens, and has led to numerous treatments to fight off diseases these pathogens cause, including pathogens that are considered likely contenders in biowarfare and bioterror attacks; that animal testing (pre-clinical trials) are an inescapable first step in developing a safe drug . . . that avoiding animal testing would inevitably result in large numbers of human casualies and fatalities during the testing phase, because most experimental drugs never make it passed the trial phase using animal research; that a variety of different species of animals, domesticated and wild, have directly benefited from animal research; and that approximately 95% of all animals used for biomedical research are rats and mice, which have a much lower encephalization quotient (intelligence capacity) than humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and even cats.Now I'm going to cover how the biomedical research industry limits the use of animals in research and protects them from gratuitous (unnecessary) harm. Finally, I'm going to go over developing alternatives to animal testing in biomedical research, and why fewer animals should be used in this type of research (even if their use is still required in fewer numbers).The Three Rs & US LawIn 1957 through 1959, researchers W.M.S. Russell and L.S. Burch went to work constructing principles that animal researchers could use to remove unnecessary pain on animals during testing and to make the field more ethical [1][2]. Their final formulation were three principles that they labeled the "3Rs": Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement [2].Replacement is the idea that researchers should use alternatives to living vertebrate animals wherever possible in their research. Today, replacement strategies include tissue cultures, perfused organs, tissue slices, cellular and subcellular fractions [2]. These strategies are recommended to distribute as much of one animal in research as possible, and as a way of multiplying the animal through live tissue cultivation (which simultaneously aligns with the principle of Reduction). Though it's not always possible, the use of invertebrate animals in place of vertebrate animals in research is also suggested.Reduction refers to the strategy of minimizing the number of animals used in a study [2]. This has the added benefit of having researchers better plan their studies, to prevent unnecessary replication. Modern methods at reduction include computer modeling, and statistical analysis, to better understand what a research result is getting at. Relying on previously published studies can also avoid unnecessary replication of test results and the gratuitous injury or death of lab animals.Finally, refinement was the last principle that Russell and Burch supported. Refinement is the strategy of intentionally alleviating or minimizing potential pain and suffering, or enchancing animal welfare during research [2]. Methods include properly housing animals during, before and after research, training animals to cooperate during research, providing animals with anaesthesia or an analgesic during testing, and avoiding invasive techniques where possible [2].Even though the 3Rs are a code of principles that animal researchers are encouraged to adhere to within the United States, they are not by themselves laws that govern biomedical research. Furthermore, even though knowledge of the 3Rs is widespread within the biomedical research community, they are not something every researcher is fully aware of--a major drawback [2].For this reason the US government passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Regulations in 1966 [3]. (U.S. Congress later improved standards for laboratory animals in 1985 [3].) The act imposed several important regulations, including requiring that all facilities doing animal research be registered with the US government; that certain animals used for research be purchased from authorized vendors only; that research facilities adhere to a variety of minimum requirements to meet humane handling, care, treatment, and transporation of these animals [4]. The Regulations also required that scientists working in the animal research laboratories be properly trained to meet the humane requirements for animal handling and proper care [4].Some US States have imposed additional regulations for animal treatment in animal research laboratories [5]As we see there are already regulations in place that govern the treatment of research animals inside the United States, though how well these regulations get researchers to comform to the three Rs is a hot button topic. One common complaint directed at the animal research field is that the majority of invasive animal experiments do not pass the cost-benefit test required by regulations and advocated by the three Rs [6]. Each year it's estimated that well over a hundred million animals die globally for animal testing in industry and in the medical research field [7].In light of the sheer number of animal fatalities, and because animal testing remains a controversial subject within the United States, several US government organization, including branches of the US military, have recently acted to reduce their dependence on animal testing [7]. In 2013, for example, the US NIH announced it would reduce the number and eventually phase out experiments on chimpanzees [7]. In 2014, the US Coast Guard announced it would reduce the use of goats in combat medic training, since modern mannequins are considered efficient in simulating the movement and behavior of the human body; that same year, the Department of Defense announced it would be reducing the number of animals used in various training programs [7].New & Developing Alternatives to Animal TestingThe sheer number of animals used in animal research annually--nearly 100 million in the United States alone [7]--should seriously get us to question whether researchers are conforming to the Principles of the 3Rs. After all, few of us want to impose unnecessary injury or death on animals where it can be avoided, even if there is some alleged benefit to ourselves. Futhermore, the concept of inflicting mass death to attain life (or a higher quality life) is unattractive, and can only make us mentally comfortable if we place civil regulations to it (unless you're a Nihilist). It's the way our justice-seeking, ethic-forming brains were wired to work. We generally want order, and we're capable of understanding that animals have feelings, too.Recently, scientists and engineers at Harvard have developed "organs on a chip" [7]. These tiny contraptions contain humans cells in three dimensional space, that mimic specific human organs. These chips can be used in place of animals for in vitro disease research, drug testing, and toxicity test [7]. Just a few years ago, researchers at L'oreal successfully 3-D printed genuine human skin, which it now sells to cosmetic and pharmocology companies; researchers say that other types of organ tissue can also be 3-D printed for research purposes [8].Computer simulation and modeling is another expanding technique used to replace animals in research [8]. Though this technique has provided real benefit to the biomedical research field, the US Academy of Sciences has argued that complex computer models are still unable to fully simulate the complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, and organs [8].[1] http://altweb.jhsph.edu...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...(animals)[3] http://awic.nal.usda.gov...[4] https://www.gpo.gov...[5] www.ca-biomed.org/pdf/media-kit/fact-sheets/FS-Laws.pdf[6] http://theconversation.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.wired.com...

Animals are not on the same level as humans. We've been debating this issue for years and talk about the horrible abuse of animals and animal rights, but what is the real issue here. In your argument it seems as though you mainly defend the use of animals as a whole. To satisfy your cause we must all be vegetarians, even as far as vegans. Even if we were to find a better and healthier way to tend animals, we will still have to slaughter them and use the meat of animals for our own gain. Yes, we as humans may take the use of animals too far, but do we really want to give up on the control we have had for many years. That brings me to my first contention: A halting decrease of animal killings would lead to a population increase that would be way too much to handle. We as humans must understand that we are keeping the animals under control by using them for our benefit. We also help many species populate by using them as many species would go extinct. This would happen because of selective breeding that we use on animals. With breeding put in the animals own hands a stable balance that we had for years would cease to exist and everything would be out of control. My second contention: Animals do not have moral standards and giving them rights doesn't necessarily change anything. We hear about dog bites or mountain lion attacks all the time. Animals do not care about how they are treated. They are just trying to live there life, and when death comes, death comes. It is not necessary to give animal rights because animals can't really tell whats right from wrong. They can't tell their actions. We need to understand that we life on this planet as a whole amongst the animals and all creatures live for there personal gain. The lion kills to feed its young, we kill to feed ourselves. Both humans and animals live equally on this planet and what we do is totally moral for our own gain. This is why I believe that animal rights is a subject that isn't necessary. We kill and animals kill for our own gain and in the end it is a matter of life or death. *Note: Remember, this is a subject that i don't really care for. I am sort of for animal rights but in the end it really doesn't matter to me what happens. Sources: http://www.wnd.com... http://animalrights.about.com... http://www.pulpless.com...

OK, now I got your point about how this computing process is 'useful in predictable circumstances', but I believe you are making a big mistake. First of all, the proposal from the FDA read that 92% of medicines working on testing animals doesn't work on actual human body. Moreover, the US ministry of Agriculture has also mentioned that the diseases which human and animals share the curing method is just about a mere 5%. It is a fallacy to think that testing on living creatures are always the best effective way. Second, as aforementioned, I can provide you plenty of tragedies happened just because of the reliability to animal test results. Firstly, a thalidomide. Made by a German company on 1953, this sedative was selling like hot cakes with the ad 'no side effects to animal testings!' while the late 1950s and the early 1960s, until more than ten thosuands of malformed chidren was born from the pregnant women who took that medicine. On the other hand, a clioquinol, which was a medicine for diarrhea, made thousands of blind people, and led hundreds of them to heaven. Lastly, I would like to remind you that this debate isn't talking about whether the animal testing is economically effective or not; we are debating just about the morality of animal testing and how it is justified or not. So, fighting for the last rounds. :)

I. Religious GroundsA. I remarked that many other religious have similar verse I can not in the short space quote from every holy text. Laws are not universally accepted either. They are vastly different from many countries so this is neither a solid answer on ethics.B. The difference is being a good leader or boss. The responsibility of Dominion is not void of mercy and caring, and is not indicative of being harsh. It is the proper weighing of all situations. Some of which may be detrimental to a subordinate or to oneself.C. The value of human life over that of a sparrow is not an excuse for abusive dominion of animals. And I already agreed the money spent and energy spent on pets that results in over population, more animal abuse, and more human abuse is unethicalII. You didn't make this distinction before in your first or second round. And it is not evident in your resolution. I feel my arguments still stand as refuting your statement. Certainly the line for a functional animal like livestock is more black and white than my cat. My cat is a pet. I enjoy her company and she enjoys mine. She will on occasion yelp and scratch at the door just to see me for a few minutes and play with a turf of grass or my hat. This line is not as cut and dry as employee and employer. So no they are not simply functional. It's a healthy symbiotic relationship. Emotional as well as functional. Animals have personalities and I have to be aware of her personal needs just as much as her physical needs. It's those bonding moments that reinforce her confidence, and social standing in the home.How would you classify pets for terminally ill children or dogs for PTSD veterans? pets in the very sense of the word.Your assertion, " it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly". Is such a subjective measure. You are paying for entertainment and Internet. This money could go to helping impoverished humans. Where is the rightful percentage of how much to spend on others, and how much of the money you work for can ethically be spent on yourself. You have given no argument to where this line is. Let's say it is 10% to charity. Then once that 10% is met, a person is ethically allowed to spend the money on a pet or a movie. I would argue that people are selfish and many more people would be impoverished if a society made such rules. Who would work hard to make more money for any luxury if it was outlawed as being a needless expense. Not to mention that a society like that would quickly lobby for me to switch to rat poison instead of having my "functional pet."

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.

Well, there isn't much to say at this point as my opponent has pretty much admitted to plagiarism and appears to think that it is benign. That unfortunately isn't true."Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it."First, it's fascinating that you've admitted to plagiarism, which to me is the equivalent of a full forfeit.Second, this is not the case. You can use some of the arguments in a piece, but literally copying and pasting somone else's work and passing it off as your own work is not permitted, neither here or in academia. I can tell you, as a published academic, that I would get into big trouble if I ever attempted to do that. Third, you haven't proven anything. And, because you bear the burden of proof, you need to prove your case.Fourth, you can call me Mr. Keynes, if you'd prefer."By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food." His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about.This doesn't prove anything. First you haven't cited the story nor used it as evidence -- please don't copy and paste it. So, at this point, you're only argument is "Trsut me, I'm right." Second you're making an assertion that animal testing is cruel without proving it. Third you haven't connected cruelty to a ban. The resolution does not pertain as to whether animal testing is cruel in its current form, but whether it should be flat-out banned. If, for instance, animal testing were modified so that it weren't cruel, and therefore there wasn't a need to ban it -- as your only contention thus far is that animal testing is cruel -- the resolution would fall.Fourth in claiming that "Kyle knows his destiny" you pronounce that the mouse is conscious and aware. You've done somhting similar by saying that "He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." These are extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence do you have of either of these claims? How can you prove either of them? "Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?"My opponent is quite right that dogs are used for testing in the United States. As I said, she does not conntect this to the resolution. Her argument is essentaily this:P1: If (x) is cruel, it should be banned. P2: (x) is cruel.C: X should be banned. If this were the case, we have to ask ourselves how we define "cruel." Not only is the phrase subjective, but then we have to consider how far we would like to go in our endeavor to eliminate cruelty. Do we ban all forms of animal slaughter? Do we agree with PETA that we animals shouldn't even be kept as pets? If that were the case, wouldn't animals be subjected to even worse fates in the wild? The point is, my opponent cannot take a hypocritical stance that some forms of cruelty are fine, but others are not. At the same time, she cannot ignore that fact that, if animal testing were to be reformed to eliminate cruelty, the resolution falls, anyway. At this point, even though I do not bear the burden of proof, I will offer my own contentions.Contention 1: Animal Testing is Necessary Truth be told, there simply isn't any alternative to animal testing, and we would be foregoing critical scientific research. For instance, all veterninary research requires animal testing, every medical breakthrough over the past 10 years has utilized it, every Nobel Prize Winner in medicine or physiology from as early as 1901 utilized it in their work, and several surgical techniques (e.g., hip replacement and heart transplants), seveal medicines (e.g., several antibiotics and pain killers), and several anasthetics all relied on animal testing -- as did medical techniquies such as MRI's. Simply put, there is no way to substitute non-animal testing completely for animal testing. We would be sacrificng major medical breakthroughs and put human lives at risk.[1. http://tinyurl.com...] Contention 2: My Opponent's Case is DeceptiveMy opponent cites dogs in her example. However, in the U.K., dogs, cats, and primates only account for 0.2 percent of the animals used in research (1). There may be ways, as I said earlier, to reform testing, but using the example of a dog is highly deceptive and Pro is leaving out crucial context. At the same time, the U.K. has strict regulations on the type of testing that can be carried out. For instance, animal testing may only be used in cases where non-animal testing cannot be substituted. Ethics committees constinually review practices to ensure that the benefits of the testing outweigh the costs, the costs being the suffering to the animals. Contention 3: Trade-Off Between Human Suffering and Animal SufferingAs I have pointed out, in many cases animal testing is non-substitutable. It has been crucial in developing crucial medicines and breakthroughs that we use today. So, if you intended to stop the suffering of animals by banning animal testing, you would significantly increase the suffering of human beings who are suffering and dying with otherwise preventable diseases. Surely my adversary would not support that. Contention 4: Philosophical CaseThere is in fact a philosophical case against animal testing. Rene Descartes, for instance, did not consider animals to be conscious, minded creatures, but essentially machines who operated solely with respect to causal laws, noted in the fact that they coudn't display adaptibility as it pertained to language and behavior. Peter Carruthers takes a simialr position. He argues that consciousness necessitates higher-order thinking. For this reason, not all human behavior is conscious. Because animals cannot exhibit higher-order thinking, an argument for consciousness is essentially null and void.[2. http://tinyurl.com...]

I am against animal rights. I shall define animal rights. Animal rights-rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and any and all other services to humans. Whoever accepts shall say why animal rights are a positive and should stay in place. Burden of proof is shared here.

Thank you for the interesting and compelling rebuttal, Con. I.Religious Grounds A.Religion is not a system of universally applicable ethics. Not only is each religion's general view of diverse ethical situations vastly different, but also each individual's interpretation of what their god deems correct varies. This sliding scale of morality cannot be considered authoritative when considering a universal ethical question. This is why we have law that supersedes preference. B.Dominion Vs. Benevolence In your citation of Genesis 1:26 you fail to make the distinction between man having dominion over animals (man's hierarchical place in the world) and man showing undue benevolence to animals. This passage is more often cited by anti-vegans then pet advocates for its meaning. No ethical system could defend unwarranted cruelty and abuse of animals, but that does not place any burden on man to proactively care for them (especially above their own kind). C.Luke 12 Granted, Luke 12:6 says that God values the life of a sparrow. However, the very next verse states that human life is worth more than that of any sparrow (or animal for that matter). If anything, this verse justifies my claim above yours. II.Symbiotic Relationships Ultimately, there is a definitive difference between a functional animal and a pet. A functional animal may be used as food (the meat industry, the eggs of chickens), your cat (in its propensity as an exterminator), or a seeing-eye dog (to guide the blind). These are not pets any more than employees are children. They are simply functional. I suggest that it is unethical to have pets because they serve no purpose, and it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly. Overall, my assertion still stands. My values prevail, as my opponent has yet to produce evidence to justify the ownership of a pet for recreational purposes as having some value to supersede the preservation of human life.