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

Animals Shouldn't Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing

Thank you for the debate, Pro. However, I must address the issue of plagiarism. A significant portion of your previous round's arguments were copied verbatim from other sources. This is not acceptable behavior, and most academic institutions require text copied verbatim to be enclosed in quotation marks. Large quantities of such unattributed text can be discredited. It's worth noting that none of your last round's arguments were plagiarized, whether due to being 'called out' on your first round or a kind fulfillment of my request. I'll leave voters to decide on this matter as it is now non-topical.

Regarding the burden of proof, please note that this debate affirms two things:
1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes
2. Animal testing for commercial purposes

The burden of proof is on Pro, and you have yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for you to fulfill your burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food and cosmetics, and I maintain that these are not defensible. So immediately, Pro has not done enough to win this debate. The defense of medical progress does not allow Pro to include the defense of commercial testing, even if your defense was valid and sound (which it is not).

The debate essentially boils down to animal rights. Pro has cited reasons why the fruits of animal research have (at least pharmaceutically) benefited us. I do not deny that the fruits of such research have positively impacted the well-being of the human species. However, that alone does not affirm the resolution that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for several points:
1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights.
2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational not to expect this of animals.
3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing.

The most important argument I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources support my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behavior would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights when there is no rational reason to do so in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery, and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value humans over animals, and I argue

As the science technology develops, there also have been a lot of experiments been made as well - one of them is animal testing, which is what this whole debate is about. About 2.5 million animals are dying per year in United Kingdom, and 4 million animals die each year in Korea, only to do the animal testing. Greetings everyone on debate.org and MickeyMouse(Jennifer). I am very honored to participate in this debate. This opposition team is against the motion of animal testing. In this round, I am going to talk about 3 arguments why I do not think animal testing is necessary, as well as what the governments has said. First I will going to rebut what the proposition team has said, and second I will then support my 3 arguments. First of all, she had talked about that by the animal testing we could save people's lives. Yes, we COULD save them, but there is not that much possibilities to do so, since it is not accurate. The result of the animal testing usually does not always apply to actual surgeries humans get. Well, I will be talking about it later on when arguing my points. Second of all, she has told us that we should not feel sad for the animal which are tested because we have already eaten them as food. However, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose for them - the ones eaten and the ones tested- are completely different. Sorry for the animals, but we kill the animals(here I mean to say animals eaten by the people such as, pigs, cows, chicken, etc.) because we HAVE to eat. We, people, cannot live properly without eating those meat, only eating the vegetables. In contrast, for the experiments, there are more chices to test with, which means animals does not really have to be used when doing the experiments. And, animals to be eaten get euthanasia(mercy killing) when they die, so we can say the case for feeling sad is different. Third of all, about the alternatives. The government team was being neglegent for the fact there IS another alternatives existing right now, which is, stem cell research. It is apparently true that it is about a human, whose right is more important than that of animal. On the other hand, since the stem cell research is very effective(since stem cell research is the test with actual human genes which applies almost 100%,right?), the scientists can spent the fewer cells(or we could just say 'lives;) for the successful surgery result. In this way, we can keep both rights and effectiveness by using this alternatives. Or else scientists can keep try doing the computer models, because the technology is keep developing. Now I would like to move on to my arguments why I believe animal testing has negative aspects rather than affirmative points. They are : 1. Animals has rights that even humans have to respect 2. Animal testing is not accurate 3. It can damage ecosystem, or the nature itself(a lot of animals get harmed a lot) Firstly, about the rights. To tell the truth, human is also part of the animals but having more developed brain, meaning that both they are the same. So why do we kill them without respecting them? It is true that they have less-developed skills since their brains are not that good. However, it can be true that they are able to think and feel. They can fear, they can be happy, they can be sad, and so on. Just because they cannot express what they feel, we should not do whatever we want to them. For example, there became such a big issue on the Internet in Korea and Japan because there were some photos about rabbits with no eyes, dogs with blooded body, monkeys with mouth of each side ripped off. In addition, the animals get tested when they are conscious. Just suppose that we are that animals being used for the experiments, then we would know how cruel that is. Secondly, it is about accuracy. As I said at the rebuttal, animal testing is not as accurate as we think. According to Seoul University, it has said that the possibility for usual scientists/doctors to make the result 100% successful takes too much time, and even they spent a lot of time, only about half(50%) are failed to get the successful result. I will now mention another example. Although Grass(which are plants) and humans have 50% same genes, look very different, even having different system in them. Besides, even though half of their genes are same, humans are alive and grass is abiotic ones. Then, even for the animals that gets tested-let's say about primates such as monkeys, which is the closest one to human-they have about 99% same genes in them. However, ladies and gentleman, the 1% that is different from them, can make the huge change. The primates body can reflex differently from how human's body reflexes, making the surgery result different. If it does so, it means that for the actual surgery that sick patients are taking, it can give harmful effects on them as well. Thirdly, I am going to talk about the nature problem. Not only do garbages and polluted gas harm the environment we all live in, but also animals getting damaged can harm it. One of them is about ecosystem. If people(here, doctors and scientists) get a lot of animals, there will be fewer and fewer animals consisting an ecosystem. Then, in a long term, the lack of animals number may give bad consequence for that ecosystem, causing other kinds of organisms to die out. Also, as I said at the first argument, there can be the animals without proper organs. For example, a rabbit which got surgery, its offsprings can get 6 legs because of animal testing. Then, the animals with weird appearance can increase a lot, which doesn't affect that good for the environment. In conclusion, because of the rights, accuracy, and the ecosystem, I am proud to oppose the motion strongly. Thank you..

I agree to debate animal testing with you. I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible. I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.

C1-Animal TestingHistorically and today, animal testing has allowed humans to advance medicine for both humans and animals. There have been many diseases that humans suffered from, that were cured due to animal testing. Among many of the contributions animal testing has brought to the world are vaccines for diphtheria, typhus, whooping cough, smallpox, tetanu, and polio; as well as bringing antibiotics, modern anaesthetics, and treatment of childhood leukaemia. (1 & 2) Even recently, animal testing has found a new treatment for diabetes and progeria. (1) Animal testing has also brought up closer to a cure or allowed better treatment for multiple forms of cancer, HIV & AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease among many other diseases. (3) The reasons animals have and are used in medical research is because before a treatment can be used by humans, it needs to be found to be safe and effective. (4) Although animals are different from humans, many have very similar DNAs. (5) Also, many animals have relatively short lifespans and are easy to run controlled experiments upon in laboratories, which can lead to very effective testing. (5) Although there are many alternatives to animal testing, there are too many tests that simply require the use of animals. Living organisms are too complex to be able to effectively test the results of certain medicines without animals. (5)Therefore, if animals are not tested upon medical breakthroughs will not be able to occur as fast as they could otherwise. This would lead to longer periods of people suffering from some diseases. The right to life is often seen as the most important human right and without animal testing, more humans (who already have rights) will lose their lives. If justice requires that each are given their due, then animal testing should be used so diseases are able to be researched in the most efficient and effective way possible, because those suffering from these diseases are due a chance at a longer and/or healthier life.However, animal testing doesn't only benefit humans, but also animals. Many of the cures that were used to cure humans of diseases were then modified to cure certain animals. (6) In fact, some medicine was developed specifically for animals such as vaccines for rabies, canine parvovirus, distemper, and feline leukemia virus. (6) Due to this, animals in pets and homes are living longer lives. (6) Animal testing has also allowed many endangered species to be saved. (6) Without animal testing, many animals will die of diseases they wouldn't otherwise die from.C2-Vegan DietIn order for animals to have rights a full vegan diet is required. However, a vegan diet can potentially be dangerous and unrealistic. Although dangerous in high amounts, saturated fats are needed for a healthy diet. (7) The primary way vegan's can get saturated fat are from coconut oil and palm oil. However, the palm oil industry harms animal rights. Current levels of demand for palm oil has led to mass deforestation in certain areas. (8) Deforestation leads to animals being injured, killed, or otherwise displaced. For example, in the past two decades over 50,000 orangutans have died due to deforestation for palm oil. (8) That leaves coconut oil, but it is unrealistic to expect the world to get its saturated fat from only coconut oil. Many times it isn't convenient to purchase in one's area. (9) There are also many other nutrients which a natural vegan diet lacks such as n-3 polyunsaturated fat, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B-12, and zinc. (10) One way some vegans get these is through fortified food, but that is not available in all areas. (10) I'll focus on vitamin D, which can be gained from sunlight, animal products, supplements, or fortified food. As already discussed fortified food isn't available in all areas. The benefits on receives from vitamin D supplements is still debated though. (11) That leaves sunlight, but some people do not get many opportunities to go outside due to their job or other reasons. In fact, many areas of the world don't get a lot of sunlight. (12): For these reasons, many people are vitamin D efficient already, specifically in Northern latitudes, with most people consuming animal products. (13) It could only get worse if everyone had to adapt a vegan diet. It also gets worse in the Fall and Winter when the amount of sunlight in areas is at its lowest. (13) Another problem with a vegan diet's idea of not killing animals would be that soil requires nutrients. The most efficient, natural, and realistic way for these to be attained is from bone meal, blood, and ash. (14) Although synthetic fertizliers are made by fossil fuels, fossil fuels are unrenewable and therefore will eventually run out. (14) Not to mention, the environmental dangers of burning fossil fuels, which can harm all life in general. Organic fertilizer also violates animal rights, as they often include products made from slaughtering animals. (15) If demand for plant produced foods increased, then arable land would need to be farmed more so, which would lead to more fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health being used. (16) Also, the use of grazing in Australia. is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent. (16)C3-Animals are immoralPro says in the first round that humans have rights, but lose them if they commit an immoral act such as murder. For this reason, animals cannot receive rights. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals kill other animals (and humans) for food. For example, there is absolutely no way a lion can survive without eating meat, which requires an animal or human to be killed. Animals cannot help themselves from murdering since they are unable to have morals to say that it is wrong to kill. Many animals such as deer which don't even eat meat, still kill animals and humans. (17) For this reason, animals cannot be given rights because they follow instinct, and their instinct requires them to commit immoral acts. Thefore, animals are not due rights as they fail to understand them and will never abide to the rules required to keep them.1-http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...2-http://www.aalasfoundation.org...3-https://www.amprogress.org...4-http://www.research.umn.edu...5-http://ca-biomed.org...6-http://www.nap.edu...7-http://www.heart.org...8-http://www.saynotopalmoil.com...9-http://www.laurelofleaves.com...10-http://ajcn.nutrition.org...11-http://www.health.harvard.edu...12-http://earth.rice.edu...13-http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... 14-http://www.foodrenegade.com... 15-http://en.wikipedia.org... 16-http://theconversation.com... 17-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Con attempts to refute my first point by saying that I just list bad actions. However, these actions are the current animal test and is what Con is arguing for. Con says that my second assertion is bald. However, in respectance to the topics, if the lab workers thought what they were doing was ethical, then they would not threaten the inspectors. That proves that even the workers know it is unethical. Con attempts to refute my "pointless" point by saying that we need animal testing to fight of mutations. However, Con has failed to provide examples for this claim and stated a hypothetical when he talked about a "black plague" Con used a Slippery Slope Fallacy to close off that refutation, therefore, we cannot take it into account. Con said that we need to test animals for micro-dosing, however Con does not address my other alternatives which include microfluidic chips, artificial skin, and cell culture testing. In defense of Moral Community, Con has set up a strawman fallacy when he misrepresented my argument. My argument was not that animals should have equal rights, by argument was that animals should be treated with a decent expected towards another sentient/sapient being. While animal testing has brought forward various medical treatments, differences in genetic structure render animal testing inefficient 99% of the time (Statista) Con attempts o refute that point by saying I did not say enough examples, but I would have run out of characters if I did. Con talks about how Banting and Best experimenting on animals brought realization of Insulin, however, medical benefits should be credited to those who discovered it, not those who verify it. Con again commits a strawman fallacy when he stated that a relationship between grain and maggots cause the creation of life. Again, this is misrepresenting my argument because Insulin was discovered in that autopsy. Con sourcelessly claims that one of my arguments is false, therefore, that refutation cannot be taken into account. In refutation to the systematic alternatives point, microfludic chips are more accurate then animal testing because they share 100% of the same genetic structure as humans. therefore, that is more accurate then animal testing. Actually, when I addressed the wound labs used in the military, i cited a 2016 NYtimes article that showed the test actually happening. That therefore counter-refutes Con's refutation.

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat? Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience: Awareness; feelings A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i. e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals). I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.

I believe animal testing should be banned. 1. Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative

Hello and thanks for the debate! This should be interesting.I will be arguing the position that testing on animals is acceptable in most cases. I will leave Round 2 for you to start the actual debate (I like Round 1 to be acceptance).Again, thanks, and good luck as well!

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.

You are making a stupid point, if any of us were being tested on for medical stuff. I would prefer to be tested on than letting the world DIE. Plus the animals don't have a choice.

they are just animals, and by testing it on animals we improve the lives of humans, OUR own.


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

The practice of animal testing is essential and beneficial. Contrary to popular belief, animals used in testing are not subjected to inhumane treatment. For instance, dogs are taken for walks, and all animals are provided with toys to play with. Without animal testing for cosmetics, companies could inadvertently spread various infections to millions of people, leading to potential lawsuits. Animal testing is crucial in saving lives daily. Consider the example of leukemia; the survival rate was once only 5%. However, through testing therapies on mice, the survival rate has now increased to 80%. Which is more valuable to you: the life of a thousand rats or the life of a thousand humans? While I am against animal cruelty, I recognize that animal testing is one of the most significant contributions a rat can make to medical research. Animal testing has led to significant advancements in medical research, including the discovery of cures for rabies and anthrax. It has also facilitated treatments for diseases such as arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella, and measles, as well as cardiovascular diseases. William Harvey used dogs to study blood circulation, Stephan Hales used hares to measure blood pressure, and Jean Poiseulle used dogs to develop the first mercury manometer for blood pressure measurement. These achievements would not have been possible without animal testing. It is crucial to highlight that animal testing can alleviate the suffering of humans with diseases like cancer and HIV, reducing their pain. Vaccines for numerous illnesses, antibiotics for infections, and insulin for diabetes have all been discovered through animal testing. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animals involved. Animal food companies use test animals to determine if adding certain oils to their diet improves their health and coat. Critics of animal testing often argue that it involves killing animals, but 95% of research animals are birds, mice, and rats, which are often considered pests and are even consumed by humans. Animal testing is necessary for survival, just as eating these animals is.

org and welcome you to it. Second, I thank you for starting this debate and wish you luck. On to my contentions. You states in your second round arguement that, "the only reason they should kill animals is when they are hurt and need to be put down. " I wish I could agree with this, but I simply cannot. Your first sentence says that humans are just like animals and should be treated just as if they were humans because they have feelings too. Well, you contradict yourself because by saying that you want to give animals the same rights of humans, you are actually giving MORE reasons to continually out them down. When a Police Officer is threatened, he must shoot the attacker, however, if the dog is the attacker, the Police Officer must still shoot. You contradict your whole argument by saying you want to treat them like humans and want to only put them down if their hurt. We cant do both, its either only kill humans when their hurt, or kill animals when it is necessary because a human is killed daily because it was necessary to do so. I urge a CON ballot

"Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their best interests, regardless of whether they are “cute,” useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all. It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation."https://www.peta.org..."People who support animal rights recognise that all animals have an inherent worth – a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every being with a will to live has the right to live free from exploitation and suffering."https://www.peta.org.uk...Con is essentially saying that humans deserve more rights than a squirrel or a dog and is likely going to justify this by saying that humans, as a whole, contribute more (to the society that determines rights) than non-human animals do. What Con is failing to comprehend is that the ability to suffer is the key to understanding Animal Rights.If I can prove that animals can suffer to the same levels as humans can, especially in a physical sense (for almost all species) but even on an emotional level of suffering (for some species) then I can explain why, even if humans deserve more Rights, animals still deserve some.For this section, I'm purely going to be quoting. The reason is that I do not want to say anything that isn't concluded directly by a reliable source."The debate around animals’ capacity to experience pain and suffer raged in the 20th century, but as we developed a greater understanding of pain, and studied its impact on the aspects of animal life that we could measure, we veterinary surgeons, along with many behavioural and animal scientists, recognised the significant impact of untreated pain, and we now believe this experience causes them to suffer. For example, we know that animals and indeed birds with clinical signs of pain (limping) will choose to eat food containing pain-killing drugs (analgesics) over untreated food, and by measures of behaviour, they will improve. Similarly many studies in a range of domestic animals have indicated that animals who have had surgery but not had adequate pain relief demonstrate behaviours reflective of pain which are alleviated when they are treated with analgesics such as morphine. We also know that it is not just our dogs and cats that can suffer pain – there is an equally strong evidence base for the presence and negative impact of pain in sheep, cattle, pigs and horses among other species. But recognising pain in these different species is part of the complexity associated with animal pain. Managing it in animals that we rear for food and those that we keep as companions is equally challenging. Behavioural disturbances have long been recognised as potential indicators of the presence of pain in animals. However it is important to recognise that each species manifests its own sometimes unique pain-related behaviours or behavioural disturbances in different ways, often rooted in the evolutionary process, so prey species, for example, are less likely to “advertise” an increased vulnerability to predators. Dogs may become aggressive, or quiet, or may stop socialising with “their” humans and other dogs. Sheep, on the other hand, may appear largely the same when casually observed. Some expressions of pain however may be conserved. A recent paper suggested commonality in some features of facial expression during acute pain experiences in several animal species and humans. These findings and much other work are being incorporated into tools to evaluate animal pain, because in the words of Lord Kelvin, the great Glaswegian scientist behind the Kelvin temperature scale, said: “When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in number … you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be”. So in order to treat and manage pain effectively we must measure it. And there is a huge demand for these tools. The Glasgow Composite Pain Scale, a simple tool to measure acute pain in dogs and first published in 2007, has been translated into six languages. It is used in veterinary practices to measure pain to treat it effectively. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of new analgesic drugs that are being developed by animal health companies. Tools to measure the impact of chronic pain, such as osteoarthritis, on the quality of life of dogs are now available and are a significant advance in managing chronic conditions. There is now a global effort to raise awareness of pain in animals. Recently the World Small Animal Veterinary Association launched the Global Pain Council and published a treatisefor vets and animal keepers worldwide to promote pain recognition, measurement and treatment. Dogs may be man’s best friend, but for all those who work with, care for and enjoy the company of animals, understanding how their pain feels is essential to improving the quality of their lives."http://theconversation.com...https://www.independent.co.uk...(both sources had the same wording)"Mammals share the same nervous system, neurochemicals, perceptions, and emotions, all of which are integrated into the experience of pain, says Marc Bekoff, evolutionary biologist and author. Whether mammals feel pain like we do is unknown, Bekoff says—but that doesn’t mean they don’t experience it. (Read how your dog knows exactly what you’re saying.) There are some clues as to how animals—especially pets—communicate physical suffering. For instance, Dorothy Brown’s dog Foster has phantom limb pain in a leg that was amputated after being hit by a car. “He will be fast asleep and jump up and cry and look at where his leg used to be,” says Brown, who teaches surgery at the University of Pennsylvania’s Veterinary Hospital, where Foster was brought in for treatment. Human amputees also experience this phenomenon. Veterinarians also rely on observant owners to report behavioral changes that may indicate painful conditions, such as no longer jumping up on the couch or a loss of appetite, Brown adds. (See "Four Weird Ways Animals Sense the World.") Scientists have developed “grimace scales,” initially used for children, for mice, rabbits, rats, and horses. Each animal displays certain physical changes that are reliable indicators of pain; hurt rabbits, for instance, will stiffen their whiskers, narrow their eyes, and pin back their ears. So there's some science behind owners' and vets' assertion that "I can see it in their eyes and I can see it in their face,” Brown says."https://news.nationalgeographic.com...

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

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...;

Animals are sentient beings. There is no need to exploit them within this society. Therefore there is no justification because it is needless. The American and British dietetic accosiation recognises a vegan diet healthy for all stages of life. The bottom line is that we can sustain and thrive without consuming animals in modern society. Therefore there is no reason to kill them and use their corpse for our pleasure.

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.

Why I win this debate: Contention 1: Not Commercially Beneficial My opponent has proved cloned meat is no different from regular meat. I have proved cloned meat costs about 10 times more than regular meat. This may also violate animal welfare (see contention 3). Impact: There is no reason for people to buy cloned meat anymore, as people will choose the cheapest choice over the expensive one. Contention 2: Not good for maintaining biodiversity I have proved that the history of restoring species back into the wild has been fraught with difficulty. My opponent insists that the researchers did not use reliable technology at that time, making it more difficult to restore the animals. But what I meant was animals went extinct in the wild because they lose their environment. Impact: Now if certain measures to the environment were done, any method to maintain biodiversity would have worked. But without doing anything to the environment, any single method, such as cloning, would never work. So cloning will not able to maintain biodiversity. My opponent also states if some animals die there will be more of them. Biodiversity means to have many species in the wild. I’m afraid my opponent has misunderstood its meaning and thought just having the animals alive would make it “maintaining biodiversity”. Contention 3: Violating Animal Welfare Cloning animals puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. My opponent states that clones can be able to be used as “machines” and produce in massive quantity agricultural and medical products. I stated how that will probably make them not treated like living things anymore, and might even turn into the next factory farming. Opponent supports the idea of factory farming, because that may support the growing human population. I will remind the opponent that the topic of this debate is “Cloning Animals is Beneficial” which does not point to a single group that receives benefit. So even if humans receive benefit, but it endangers animals, you cannot count it as beneficial. Impact: Since violating animal welfare will not be beneficial to animals, Cloning is not exactly beneficial. Contention 4: Commercial Endeavors Cloning dead pets can be expensive. But adopting animals from shelters is a better choice. Impact: Cloning dead pets not beneficial because homeless pets in shelters can use a home, but fewer pets will be adopted. Contention 5: Treatment for human diseases/ Biomedical Research Opponent states we will never know if cloning can cure human diseases unless we try. But he does not show exactly the theory or the how cloning can be cures. So it’s like grasping in the dark. Impact: It’s better to at least have a theory before we act. Opponent does not have a theory, thus unable to show cloning has certain health benefits. Cloning is not Beneficial (At least from what Pro says, it’s hard to conclude it’s safe. )

The source my opponent cite is well worth the read. And fully supports what I have said for some time. People are treating their pets better than their kids. Or that many people are not treating their animals in a manner socially healthy for themselves or the pet in question. It's not doubt that some pet owners see pet's almost as toys or as a wagging tale to see when they come home. Some pet owners use their pets as place holders for a child. There is an over population because people are obsessed with owning a cute puppy to love and cherish like a child, instead of the reality. [1][2]But the Resolution is if "Owning and Caring for a Pet is Unethical". My opponent is making the case that any money spent on any pet is better spent on human life. This all or nothing premise I have strong contentions with. If we take an applied ethical stance on the resolution we can assert that there is a situation in which the ownership and care of a pet s ethical maybe even morally required. My arguments proceed as such from a variety of different moral grounds. Religious GroundsBecause we are talking about Ethics and religion is one driving force in the systematic application of moral rules, some reader will find find religious ground pertinent to the resolution. Though I cite from the Judeo-Christian Bible there are equivalent verses in many other holy scripture to justify the same conclusion. I merely cite the Bible now as it is a source I am familiar with. Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth. "Mankind has a responsibility to take care of the animals of the earth. Luke 14:5 Jesus says, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out"Jesus is stating that it is permissible to work on the Sabbath if it is to save life. He equates the life of an animal to that of a child. Proverbs 12:10 says, "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. "Clearly against animal cruelty and for the care and well fare of beasts employed by man. Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before GodNo Creature big or smalls suffering or death is forgotten by God. Morally based on religion we would have an obligation to care for the animals, to care for the environment, and to care for pets we employ. Symbiotic RelationshipAnimals do not have an ethical system. They react and think in natural terms. I think the stance of a symbiotic relationship is the healthiest perspective to have on the care of animals. I'll use a personal example of this but I want the reader to know that is common among my neighbors and friends to see animals in this same light. I have a cat. I don't even like cats. I would say I am apathetic to cats. But I have a cat named Sassy. I should call her Athena because I can not express how bad arse this cat is. She is an outside cat, who is neutered and gets regular shots. She is friendly and non-feral to people she gets introduced to by me. She knows where her home is and what her job is. I feed her one small cup of food a day. She protects the house from rats and snakes. Both which are health hazards to people and hazards to my property. I am not imbuing human characteristics on to my cat. I can read her body language and I know she sees me as dominate. She does not bring me dead stuff because she sees me as an adult. A bag of cat food for 2 months is around 12 dollars. To protect against rats I could buy poison. Which is harmful to people, can reside in the soil and parts of the house for years with out degrading it's hazard to human health. A rat can become immune to poison and require harsher chemicals to repel and kill them. Harm to other natural animal life, like mountain lions, deer, water supplies, and more have all been attributed directly to rat poison usage. Cost of rat poison anywhere between 30 to 100 dollars for a 1 month supply. I could purchase traps and fill the land fills with carcasses of dead rats. These techniques are only for the rats and not for the snakes. Those are a whole new set of problems. My cat Sassy, pound for pound, and buck for buck is the most effective, human safe, natural killing machine and disposal processing plant for such pests. This is only cat but I know many people that accomplish their jobs with the aid of animals know what I am talking about. It is not even that different then you waking up in the morning and having to go to work. Most people have a boss they listen to. Some bosses are good some bad. The pet gets their needs met, are happy and satisfied with working. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. [1]. http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com...[2]http://www.dogbreedinfo.com...

I believe animal testing is good because it saves human lives.

Thanks for accepting Pro. I too hope that this will be a intellectual and enjoyable debate. With that said I am truly sorry for forfeiting. I honestly thought I had until today to post my arguments. Arguments: 1.Animals Feel.Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated better by humans? Humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and empathy. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes. While one could argue that it is a necessity for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the building blocks of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the respect they deserve? After all as I've said animals made humans evolve the way we did and without animals we would have never needed to evolve. So shouldn't we respect them? At least by not having bull fights, dog fights and such. Like the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." To review. 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical and feel pain. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. Humans did greatly influence global warming and made it worse. 2. We need animals for our survival.For instance the honeybee. We are partly responsible for their demise. We need them. 1. Are they really disappearing?Yes. "Nearly one-third of the world's crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, but over the last decade the black-and-yellow insects have been dying at unprecedented rates both in the United States and abroad." 2. Do we really need them?To live? Not necessarily. But to live normally yes. "The bottom line is, if something is not done to improve honeybee health, then most of the interesting food we eat is going to be unavailable," warns Carlen Jupe. Are humans party responsible?Yes. "So what's killing the honeybees? Pesticides — including a new class called neonicotinoids — seem to be harming bees even at what should be safe levels." Remember the bee is just one example. Sourceshttp://time.com...http://www.businessinsider.com...https://m.youtube.com... Rebuttals: I will post it in the next round.


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

Animal testing is justified when necessary for medical advancement.
Animal testing is appropriate when utilized for medical purposes, specifically for testing novel medications intended solely for medical use. The debate over animal testing persists, but should it be permitted when human lives are at stake? Animal testing has been central to every significant medical breakthrough in the past decade. However, is it ethically sound?

Hello, guys. Hello, Jane. Well, have you heard about animal testing? Well, if you have, what do you think about it? Now, I'm going to talk about points that why I agree with animal testing. First, we can save people's lives with animal testing. Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits. Second, we always eat meat so why they always say that animal testing is wrong? Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research. Thirdly, Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing. Thank you.:)

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

Are you saying that, because animals to do not express communication in human language, they can be tested on, tormented in Spanish bullfights and eaten? That is a diabolical idea. *** Why Sentience Is Not Limited To Speech *** What is "sentience"? Sentience is the ability to feel things, including emotions and pain. Research has proven that all animals ("animals" as defined in Round 1) feel pain, and pain is not something any creature psychologically or physically deserves. To inflict pain on animals for, as an example, human entertainment, is unethical. ***Ethics*** From the beginning of civilization, human society has adapted to further accommodate the psychologically complex human brain. Our thoughts are biologically programmed to protect our species; for this, society created ethics and morals. One may argue that morals apply only to humans, but, in reality, "morality" involves psychological compassion. Compassion to animals also develops compassion to our own species. Most people are unaware of the horrendous abuse that animals endure everyday; lab tests on animals have been proven unnecessary and are yet practiced by a variety of companies; animals are killed for ENTERTAINMENT (Spanish bullfighting) et cetera. Animals have the same ability to feel pain as humans, and many can even feel emotions. To help forge society, humans created a concept of ethics, based on the stronger psychology of human beings. While one can argue that ethics is only mutual, and meant for intra-human relationships, why do animals not deserve similar respect from humans? All sentient beings deserve respect. An animal may kill a human, and yet that animal is psychologically made to do such a thing; ethics is too complex for animals to practice. Humans, though, have the ability to extend compassion, and animals deserve this compassion. Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect? 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. 4. Animals cannot commit "crimes". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of "ethics", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain. Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. The assignment of different moral treatment to animals and humans is a form of discrimination called speciesism, that must be abolished. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being"s rights, "The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account. Why are we morally obligated to do so? It is because humans created the concept of morality. Morality is a subtle thing, and a subject of human psychology. Biologically, the human's developed morality intuitively to ensure the genetic survival of the human race, and for the survival of the human race, we need a balance in the ecosystem. Slaughtering animals destroys the balance of the ecosystem in a variety of ways. Some of these are described below: 1. Raising them for slaughter: For the formation of factory-farms, or any slaughter farms, there is a massive encroachment of wildlife, that results in the destruction of forests. According to the Worldwide Fund for Wildlife (WWF), 31% of the total land area is covered by forests; ideally, 46% of the Earth's land mass would have to be covered by forests for a balanced ecosystem. 2. Hunting: Hunting creates an imbalance in any habitat-ecosystem, by reducing the population of animals. In his book "Animal Liberation", moral philosopher Peter Singer states, "The basic principle of equality is not equal treatment, it is equal CONSIDERATION." This equal consideration, I believe, must be given to non-human animals, or we violate morality. Morality is necessary for the maintenance of society and civilization. Conclusion: Animals deserve equal respect, welfare, and rights and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses, laboratories that practice animal testing et etera Sources - Environmental Values: Why the Naive Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive; Journal of Popular Culture: Configuring the Human in Western History; The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity; The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University); Animal Liberation by Peter Singer; http://www.worldwildlife.org...

Now lets get on with my first argument. Animals are mistreated in circuses Animals shouldn"t be used in circuses because they are mistreating the animals. Exotic animals are supposed to be free roaming the wild, not under a big tent jumping through hoops of fire and balancing on their heads! Animals in circuses are usually hurt with whips and billhooks, kept in a small cage where they eat, sleep, and do their business all in the same place, and so much more. PETA recently confiscated a video which shows a trainer beating an elephant, while other trainers are shouting stuff like "hit her, make her scream! " This just proves my statement. , heres the video: www. youtube. com/watch? v=V4lO8Ner3hYR06; As you can see, circuses are a poor place for animals to live, as it's more like a prison to them. I await my oponents response

I see you have the ability to quote texts on sociology and philosophy but you do not seem to have ever studied them. These are theories that have been put forth over the decades and centuries and anyone can have a theory. The problem with this is that many ideas are idiotic and contrary to what most people with a sense of moral responsibility and justice would consider ethical. Humans do not only have a social obligation to all humans, they have an obligation to every living thing on this planet. Every animal has a right to be here. If they did not, they would never have been here in the first place. Social contracts include responsibility to the earth itself and every living thing on this planet. No, I did not look up that theory, it is one that any humane, intelligent person would accept. If you had ever studied ethics you would understand that there are universal ethics. These are ideas that almost everyone on the planet would accept as being right. I am not a religious person so I am not basing my views on any religion. But, lets face it, if I went on youTube and proclaimed my parrot as the next savior because he talks at least 5 million people would convert to Parroticism. Animals have rights because they are living things. They feel love, they feel pain, they feel happiness, and depression. We have counted on animals for our very existence for centuries. Where would George Washington and the first U.S. Army have been without horses, let alone farmers, mail carriers, merchants, etc? I also have to point out that imperative research has been done using animals. I am a scientist, I don't participate in it but it has contributed to the health and welfare of mankind. You have no right to determine what species should have rights or not. You have borrowed your theories from people that have no other qualifications than that they once lived and someone put their ideas in a textbook or on the internet. One more thing to point out, serial killers usually agree with your ideas. In most cases the abuse of animals has been noted in the early life of a serial killer.

A2:Animal testing can help us find new amazing discoveries. R: Many amazing discoveries have resulted from animal testing E1:"In the early 20th century, most medical professionals suspected polio was an infectious disease, but had little proof. In 1908, Dr Karl Landsteiner and Dr Erwin Popper used extracts from the spinal cord of a boy who had died from polio to replicate the disease in monkeys. These experiments allowed the disease to be transmitted from monkey to monkey, providing an invaluable model of the disease that could be studied." E2:It has helped advancements for rabies treatment,malaria, smallpox, diphtheria, inhalers,Parkinson"s disease, and many others. E3:The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s. - Understanding Animal Research Organization E4: Cetirizine,diphenhydramine,ibuprofen,aspirin,and NSAID have all been tested on animals and are available over the counter. E5:"Viral diseases, however, remained difficult to study. At this time, Dr John Enders and his colleagues developed a culture technique which allowed the polio virus to be grown in human tissue. They discovered that the virus not only grew in brain tissue as expected, but in other types of human cells. As the virus was too small to be seen with any available technique, there was only one way that Dr Enders could check that he had extracted the virus from mouse brain tissue and grown it in culture. This was to inject the culture fluid into mice and monkeys, where it produced paralysis typical of polio." I:Animal testing can produce amazing results.

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...

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.

Contention 1: Anthropomorphism. My claim is not that non-human, sentient animals should be held to human standards, rather that non-human, sentient animals should be held to a moral standard of some kind. Clearly, as I argued, non-human animals should not have ‘rights’ because they are not human (e.gs. non-human animals don’t have the mental capacity to vote, they don’t have the capacity to understand public indecency etc.). Therefore, non-human, sentient animals should not be treated as humans. However, non-human, sentient animals have a capacity, of perhaps a lesser level than humans, to feel empathy. Dr. Michael W. Fox writes, “If animals were incapable of empathy, of understanding another’s emotional state and having feeling for another’s distress, then we would find no evidence of altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom. But indeed we do.”[1] Here is a brief example wherein a dog tries and succeeds to help another dog in danger (video on right). [2] This, at the very least, gives us a slight insight as to the capacity that non-human, sentient animals have for understanding other animal’s emotions/ state of being. A journal article by Karine Silva and Liliana de Sousa titled: ‘Canis empathicus’? A proposal on dogs' capacity to empathize with humans [3], explores exactly what is suggested in the title. The article, which collaborates numerous other works, concludes that dogs do have a capacity for empathy, which has origins in their wolf ancestors (hunting in packs). Empathy is a social phenomenon that is, as you can see, not limited to humans (but, arguably, non-human, sentient animals have a lesser capacity for empathy). Another report by White, in 2007, suggests that dolphins (and related species) have the capacity for empathy, and this was demonstrated by identifying spindle cells (nerve cells that convey empathy). [4] I argue that because it is clear that non-human, sentient animals have a capacity for empathy, they should be morally bound, but not by the heights of human moral standards, rather standards of their own, relative to their capacity (so, a higher standard for those social creatures, and a much lower standard for those ‘loner’ creatures). In light of this, in no way have I anthropomorphised non-human, sentient animals. Contention 2: Anthropomorphism Part 2: Carnivores. Regardless of whether eating is required for sustenance, it is immoral to kill for the purpose of eating sentient, feeling meat. Perhaps you could be empathetic for the lions, as that is their evolutionary assigned method of consumption, but the act is still immoral. My moral framework, as I outlined in round 1, explains why it is immoral to kill conscious animals for their meat (because it is known that is causes suffering). The lion has a capacity to understand the suffering that it is inflicting (another social creature), and so it should be morally bound to an extent. In this case, it would become a decision of which of two options is less immoral (letting the lion starve or letting the lion eat now). I argue that letting the lion eat will not only cause the suffering of the animal eaten (although, the suffering resulting from the lion’s starving would subside), but that the lion will be obliged to eat many other sentient, feeling creatures in the future, hence creating an enormous amount of suffering by perpetuating its existence. Since I doubt the lion would be able to understand this future extension, I feel it unfair to hold it to this kind of human standard of morality. However, it is more than capable of understanding the suffering that it is imposing on its victim in the current situation, and thus the morality standard should extend from there. The latter of kbub’s arguments suggests that allowing the extinction of lions would be, morally, the wrong thing to do. I argue the complete opposite; we should, as humans that can understand the predicament that a sentient, feeling state dictates, we are morally obliged to prevent unnecessary suffering. As I somewhat hinted to earlier, allowing the further procreation of lions would not only ensure monumental suffering of its prey, but an amount of suffering for the predator itself. The lion has to eat, it has to consume the meat of these creatures; why would you want to condone the existence of such a morally revolting creature? Contention 3: Animal Ignorance: Again, I am not “professing” ‘animal rights’, as I explicitly stated in my opening round, under the title: Non-human animals do not have rights. I understand the need for animals to eat, and that’s precisely why carnivores should be disallowed from breeding. It’s the fact that these animals have to eat other animals to exist, and the fact that it is immoral to kill sentient, feeling creatures for their meat, that you can now see the two are incompatible. But I put it to you, again, as another human, which is the least morally problematic?-: allowing these terrible creatures to eat now and continue to cause suffering in the future, or to starve them to death and end the cycle of suffering? You, as a human, have the capacity to understand the question and the suffering involved, and hence you have the moral obligation to answer this question. Conclusion I’ll say it again so that it is clear: I am NOT arguing for animal rights in the sense that my opponent speaks of. I AM arguing for a lesser (than human’s), moral obligation for non-human, sentient animals to be held accountable to. This extends from their capacity to be empathetic towards other sentient, feeling creatures. I have also argued that humans have a moral obligation not to kill other sentient, feeling creatures for their meat, which my opponent seems to agree on. Over to you, kbub. References and sources [1] http://drfoxvet.com... [2] http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=qjOJmc2aCkI http://www.youtube.com... [3]http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org... [4] White, T. I. (2007). In defense of dolphins: the new moral frontier. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub

Why is it so impractical for humans to endure this? what makes them so different than animals? why are animals more greater and more important than animals, they are larger and consume more? that i believe is no excuse. we basically already test the products ourselves. Would you look at a bottle of body lotion, body soap, makeup and say iam going to put it in my mouth..... probally not... so why would you force down someone else's throat. If you think its alright and just natural to do so..... we should shove you in cages and shove tubes down your throat, force foreign objects down your throat and beat you senslessly. And you still have the heart to say thats okay?