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

Animal testing should be prohibited due to ethical considerations and the respect for animal life. Just like humans, animals are living beings with feelings and should not be subjected to suffering simply because they are considered inferior. The concept of treating all living organisms equally, regardless of their power or species, is crucial. Imagine being trapped in a small room and used for someone else's benefit solely because you are deemed weaker. You would undoubtedly find it unfair, as your rights and opinions are not taken into account. Some argue that humans and animals should not be treated equally, but the principle remains: if we are all born on Earth, every living creature deserves equal treatment and consideration.

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane, as evidenced by the methods employed in experiments. Animals are subjected to force feeding, inhalation of harmful substances, starvation, physical restraint, burns, and other wounds to study healing processes, and pain infliction to test remedies. The Draize eye test, for instance, involves restraining rabbits and forcing them to endure the effects of products being tested. The LD50 test determines the dose of a chemical that will kill 50% of the animals in an experiment. These practices result in immense suffering for the animals involved.

Fortunately, alternative testing methods have emerged that can replace the need for animal testing. In vitro testing using human cells can produce more relevant results, as can microdosing in human volunteers, artificial human skin, and microfluidic chips that mimic human organs. Computer models can also predict toxicity without the need for invasive animal experiments.

Animals make poor test subjects due to their significant differences from humans in anatomy, metabolism, and cellular structure. This makes it difficult to create accurate animal models for human conditions. For example, thalidomide, a drug that caused severe birth defects in humans, passed animal tests without showing any adverse effects. Similarly, the arthritis drug Vioxx appeared to have a protective effect on mice's hearts but ended up causing over 27,000 heart attacks and sudden deaths in humans. Animal tests may also lead researchers to ignore potential cures and treatments, as some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans.

Moreover, 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act, leaving them vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse. Animal tests are unreliable in predicting results in human beings, with 94% of drugs that pass animal tests failing in human clinical trials. In addition, animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and waste government

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

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.

First, I thought this was a debate and not a "Here's the definitions and you're wrong". Secondly, medical and cosmetic research labs kill animals 80% of the time and there are many more promising methods.

I would like to begin my argument by pointing out that you agree with me that animal testing is wrong in many cases. You stated it was wrong to experiment on animals for developing make-up, weapons, and shampoo. I would like to try to convince you that it is also wrong in developing medicines for people. I am not going to argue your point; "I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing." I can't change what has happened in the past, and there is no reason to argue about something that cannot be changed. I am not going to argue that animal testing in the earlier days of medical development didn't benefit mankind. What I will argue is that it is no longer justified to do animal testing. During the time scientist and researchers were finding cures and treatments for many diseases; they were also finding more advanced ways of developing these drugs. With advanced laboratory equipment such as the Cobas 4800 system, the ABL800 Flex, and perhaps most significantly the Rapid Fire 300 mass spectrometer; it could be possible to develop new drugs without using animal experimentation. "As demands for safe and efficacious pharmaceutical drugs grow, technological solutions will be of increasing interest that reduce barriers to clinical success rather than simply shifting bottlenecks and necessitating new compromises in the discovery and development process. Critical are those solutions providing better target selection and validation from improved information on disease pathophysiology; more predictive and biologically-relevant high throughput assays; and acquisition of ADME/Tox earlier in the discovery process with the goal of identifying and rejecting earlier in the process those chemical structures having poor safety profiles. Miniaturised, quantitative assays implemented in high throughput hold the promise to impact these important areas of need. Nanofluidic quantitative PCR moves the superior analytical properties of the PCR assay into high throughput screening by enabling the capability of quantitatively measuring gene expression in multiple genes in multiple specimens simultaneously with the potential of providing better quality information by biologically validating a target's role in disease pathophysiology. The dual concepts of miniaturisation and quantification is further extended to screening functions in the discovery and development process where the goal is to generate safe and efficacious compounds for subsequent testing in humans. Introduction of high throughput mass spectrometry methods in the initial screening phase and following in vitro ADME/Tox testing phase allows testing of putative drug compounds with assays of greater biological relevance to the disease pathology combined with information on compound safety earlier in development. Better quality data from identifying biologically effective compounds based on application of these new technologies will ultimately impact the odds of clinical success; jump-starting a new era in drug discovery that will allow the industry to realise the gains promised by more than a decade of rapid technological progress." http://www.ddw-online.com... The key sentence in the above paragraph is; "The dual concepts of miniaturisation and quantification is further extended to screening functions in the discovery and development process where the goal is to generate safe and efficacious compounds for subsequent testing in humans." With the scientific research equipment that is available today it is no longer justified to give thousands of animals slightly different versions of a new drug, just to see which ones die and how long it takes them to die. In addition to the advanced laboratory equipment already in existence; nanotechnology is making progress to advance science. "Nanoparticle research, has the capacity to profoundly affect mankind"s future. By carefully researching nanoparticle elements into their smallest components and then engineering these particles to achieve different functions, researchers can dramatically enhance everything from delicate electronics to life-saving medical techniques." http://nanogloss.com... If you take the time to understand how incredibly advanced scientific technology is today; it is plain to see that animal testing is, to put it judiciously, 'outdated'. Therefore it is not necessary to use animal testing.

Without animal testing most medical drugs/cancer treatments wouldn't have been developed as fast/at all. The animals tested on have never seen the wild, they are bred and reared for one purpose, testing. I believe these are NOT right: 1) Make-up tests 2)When weapon manufacturers use their firearms to try out on live pigs/animals. 3) Shampoo and miscellaneous stuff that wouldn't even benefit society. That's it really. I believe that it is completely morally right when it could save a patient of a deadly disease, for eg: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals." http://www.mofed.org... reading that you must agree that it's mostly right, I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing.

Opening StatementWhile I understand my opponent's disapproval of animal research, and connect to his sentiments toward human-inflicted animal suffering, neglect, abuse, and death, I want to point out that animal testing has in fact benefited humankind tremendously over the last century and has been at the forefront of medical advances and breakthroughs that have lengthened the human lifespan and have improved the quality of human life worldwide. No one in the modern industrial world (and few anywhere else) have been untouched and unbenefited by the medical research conducted on animals over the last 100 years. The sacrifice these animals have made in animal research has enhanced human life and the field of biomedical research staggeringly.According to the US-based, Foundation for Biomedical Research: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century, for both human and animal health. From the discovery of antibiotics, analgesics, anti-depressants, and anesthetics, to the successful development of organ transplants, bypass surgery, heart catheterization, and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, control, and cure of disease is based on knowledge attained through research with laboratory animals. [1]""Virtually every major medical advance of the last 100 years, from chemotherapy to bypass surgery, from organ transplantation to joint replacement, has depended on research with animals. Animal studies have provided the scientific knowledge that allows physicians and other health care providers to improve lives for humans and animals by preventing and treating diseases and disorders and by easing pain and suffering. [1]"Indeed, scientific research conducted with cows helped to exterminate small pox off the Earth; Polio was eradicated through the use of research on mice and monkeys; the hormone Insulin was discovered to combat the illness diabetes thanks to research on dogs and fish; penicillin, a group of antibiotics used to treat various strains of bacterial infection, was first accurately researched on laboratory mice; working vaccines for tetanus, rubella, anthrax and rabies were discovered through research on horses, monkeys, sheep, and rabbits respectively [2].The lifecycle of malaria became better understood thanks to research on pigeons; open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers became viable medical treatments because of research with dogs, as did various kinds of organ transplanation; an effective drug in AIDS treatment was discovered because of research with monkeys [2]. The list of scientific and medical advances because of animal research is far more extensive than this.And animal research has also led to the lengthening of the human lifespan worldwide. States the Foundation for Biomedical Research: "Knowledge gained from animal research has contributed to a dramatically extended human life span, which has increased from 47 years in 1900 to more than 78.8 years in 2012. Part of this increase can be attributed to improved sanitation and better hygiene, but a significant portion of this longevity is a result of medical advances made possible in part from animal research. [1]"Undoubtedly, hundreds of millions of animals have lost their lives because of scientific medical research that has benefited practically everyone alive on the planet today and several worldwide generations of the previous century; it's a toll we humans will have to acknolwedge for observed improvements in quality of life and extended lifespan. We owe these animals our gratitude and our respect.But before we begin to point judgemental fingers at the whole practice of animal research, we should first become aware of the practices used, the laws put in place, the animals primarily used in modern-day medical science research, the developing alternatives to animal research, and the current list of health issues and medical crisis that confronts the human global population.That's what I intend to cover in the next four rounds.[1] http://fbresearch.org...[2] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...

I very much appreciate my opponent's style of debate as well, and am glad to see someone new to the site showcasing such a high level of debate prowess. That being said, I'm going to go through and rebut his case and rebuild mine. Pro starts off by essentially conceding utility. This makes this debate a question of whether morality can and should apply mainly to a specific action taken (as my opponent argues), or whether the context of an action should determine its morality (as I argue). This is the basis of the debate. When Pro states that I've misinterpreted the topic, he's really misunderstanding the purpose of my points regarding alternatives. The purpose of these arguments was to showcase other possibilities that exist in a world where we accept that this practice is immoral and decide to act upon it. Every single one is immoral in its own right. By not responding to these specifically, Pro is tacitly conceding that no alternatives exist that are morally superior. He's welcome to provide some response in the final round on this point, but as it stands now, all three alternatives I've discussed are morally reprehensible by comparison. Just to remind everyone what those alternatives were, they were human experimentation, allowing limited experimentation (in vitro/simulations), and no experimentation. My opponent is right. We aren't discussing the actual practice of banning animal experimentation. What we are discussing is its morality, and that morality only exists in comparison to other available actions. Harms exist in any case, therefore we must evaluate by comparison. Of course, this assumes that we're looking at the overall picture, something my opponent is adverse to " as well he should be, since deontology doesn't look at the overall picture. Pro provides a number of false analogies that I will get to in a moment, but let's look at how deontology would evaluate similar medical situations. First, you really wouldn't have to get to animal experimentation. You could call the needle sticks that are necessary for this research morally reprehensible, since it punctures the skin and injects something foreign into the body. Given Pro's line of reasoning, every single injection would also be immoral. Context is necessary. We don't view the injection as immoral because we know that the purpose of that injection is to assist the person. Even if that person is unconscious and unable to consent, that's not necessarily immoral, but more importantly, that's context. You need to know more than just what that leg of the experiment looks like in order to find immorality. Second, every evaluation Pro provides of harm is utilitarian as well, and therefore can be compared to others. Pro impacts every single one of his points very logically by stating that there are physical harms done to these animals and ultimately, most are euthanized. Thus, we're not evaluating this actually as a means. We're evaluating it as an end. All Pro has done is shift the end point to somewhere earlier than the actual one, focus on the animals, and function with the same utilitarian principles in evaluating it. Pro is tacitly accepting that utilitarianism is most appropriate, he'd just rather it function in a vacuum. Now, I'm going to get into some specific refutation. 1) Anthropacentracism It's a nice critique, one I've seen before in live debates. Pro never impacts this, at all. He never explains why this is a bad thing to engage in (hypocrisy alone isn't an impact, nor is it harmful in and of itself), or what is a feasible moral alternative. I would say that any alternative is completely unreasonable " it's hard to get funding to support research that aims to treat something not associated with humans. The only way research gets funding is if human beings fund it " much as I think a buck is a majestic animal, it is not made of actual monetary bucks. Beyond that, Pro makes a wrong assertion. Yes, we do have treatments that we've found for pet rodents, but more importantly, we've grown to understand a number of preventative methods that keep rodents from suffering from all manner of disease.[1] So yes, they have benefited. 2) False analogies Under "flaw 2," Pro provides a number of these. Let's go through them individually. No, Hitler was not less immoral than Stalin based on the number of dead. Again, context. Hitler was trying to eradicate multiple populations of people entirely and was killing to make the world pure and Aryan. That's a mitigating factor that makes them more or less the same morally. But more importantly, it doesn't matter whether one is more or less moral. We accept them both as immoral, and recognize that neither lacks for alternatives that were moral. The same thing applies to the dropping of the atomic bombs. Pro is just stating a false dichotomy. I don't have to defend the choice to do so " diplomacy existed as a moral alternative. The justification for the removal of emotions may be valid, but there are too many mitigating factors to be certain that it's actually beneficial. Ambition/greed are not the only emotion expressed by humans, nor are they solely harmful. It is simple to argue the utility of emotions to the population at large. Pro essentially states that this is all a part of the moral math, yet he leaves out any and all variables that can modify that "math." Pro asserts that focusing on the "greater good" has been demonstrated as wrong, but simply ignores all of the mitigating factors that affect that evaluation. Pro compares to the French Revolution. Again, the reality that alternatives existed modifies our ability to evaluate the outcomes. He tries to distinguish between a moral cause and an immoral act, but doesn't recognize that they are one in the same in this instance: both the cause is a moral one, and, when context is applied, so is the act itself. Lastly, Pro discusses a comparison of human clones bred for organ harvesting and the use of oncomice and transgenic pigs in research, assuming my position. He's wrong. I think both are morally reasonable, and not that one is better than the other. Again, the key words are context and alternatives. The context here is that these are lives created specifically for the purpose, and saves the life of people who would otherwise lose theirs. That's not to mention that Pro doesn't state how this would occur " many have considered clones made without a brain, and as such ones that cannot suffer. The alternative is that many people lack for organs, and there is no other way to acquire them adequately. I'll quickly respond to Pro's questions. 1) In some instances it becomes fuzzy, though even in chimps the life cycle is shorter than in humans, providing faster results. In most instances, no. I've provided strong and specific rationale for why rodents are used that Pro left untouched. Pro doesn't state how to solve for this double standard. As alternatives have larger moral quandries, any double standard here is morally preferable and therefore moral. 2) Not sure where you're getting that quote, but no, I don't. Viability doesn't make it moral. Its contextual morality makes it moral. 3) I don't know who or what allocates this "right," but every living creature on this planet makes a determination that their species is most important. Lions don't have a "right" to disembowel and eat other creatures, but it does anyway. Just as we shouldn't expect them to starve to meet a specific concept of morality, we shouldn't expect people to suffer and die because of that same concept. The reality that we have a larger effect than a lion does doesn't alter the inherent morality of saving lives for the purpose of perpetuating the species and improving quality of life. It's not about any right, and if you feel it is, explain where it comes from. I hand the debate back to Pro. 1. https://vetmed.tamu.edu...

Thanks to Pro for his arguments this round, and I'm going to launch straight into this. Pro is fundamentally misunderstanding my arguments, which is the entire reason he sees contradictions. From the outset, no, I did not agree that the utility of animal experimentation is irrelevant. That's a necessary portion of understanding my arguments in support of utilitarianism. If it doesn't have utility, it can't also be utilitarian. Let's go through the summary points he provides. 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) It is, in part, a math argument on lives saved and quality of life gained. This one is mostly correct. Point 2) Use of animals is the only realistic viable solution for the problem of consent. Not my point. Never once said the word "viable" beyond responding to Pro's question. I said that consent, across the board, is impossible to gain from both humans and animals at this stage, meaning that any harms that come from a lack of consent apply no matter the circumstance, which means consent issues are not unique to my case. Point 3) A human life weighs more than an animal life. Pro keeps saying this, yet I've never once, in this debate, made this argument. I've stated that we, like all animals, are self-interested. I've stated that we, unlike other animals, can do research into how to protect from and treat disease. That doesn't make us higher weight, it just emphasizes the very purpose for which we are having this debate. I don't understand where he's getting this point from. I don't know how Pro completely left out my arguments about a lack of available alternatives and the contextual issues, which were integral to my last round, since these were central to my argumentation. Now, let's look at those contradictions: 1) Lives lost contradiction Yes, I did concede that number of lives is not the SOLE factor for deciding morality. Leaving out that word "sole" is a big problem, because he's straw manning my argument. I'm not saying lives lost don't connect to morality - they do. They apply in the Hitler-Stalin example; both men are immoral chiefly for the number of people they killed, though that is not the sole factor to assess with regards to their morality. I mentioned context multiple times throughout my last post and assessed its importance. That doesn't mean that I contradicted any of my former claims about life lost presenting a moral harm. I really don't understand why I have to present every mitigating factor up front - this was a direct response to your analogy. I wasn't about to spend my first post assessing all of the means by which morality is affected in a utilitarian sense. I don't see why my lack of detail shows that I'm "hid[ing my] contradiction," especially since said contradiction doesn't exist. We can evaluate utilitarianism in context without saying that lives lost don't matter. 2) "Realistically viable" Here, again, he uses this strange verbiage. "Realistically viable." He quoted it in the last round as though it came from me, but I never said that line. There's a difference between viability and utility. Viability is the capacity to be operated or be sustained. Utility is usefulness, the ability of something to satisfy needs or wants. In this case, we're talking about utility for needs. The fact that it can be sustained doesn't make it moral - it just makes it effective. It's as simple as that. 3) The Island Considering that the third premise is completely wrong, no, I didn't contradict my own point here. He also misunderstands my response. The majority of it is to show that there is utility to a situation where humans are created and not just plucked from the general population in order to benefit other humans. I also stated that this is most moral when a clone is created without a brain, therefore lacking personhood. Pro is nonresponsive to these points. 4) The injection analogy Pro is mishandling this argument. It doesn't matter who the beneficiary is, or who is the victim. Pro is presenting a deontological argument where he can separate out a means and evaluate its morality without looking forward or backward in time for context. At the point that the injection occurs, there is no beneficiary. It's not until later that the victim becomes the beneficiary. Ergo, as long as I evaluate morality before looking forward to the beneficial effects of the drug, the injection is net harmful. What's worse, he actually contradicts himself here. Remember in the previous post when he was making a distinction between a moral cause and an immoral act, stating that a moral cause - even one that saves billions of lives - isn't sufficient to make an act moral. Yet here, he justifies intrusion on a person's consent for the purposes of injection of something beneficial. He can't have it both ways. 5) Damage to non-humans for the sake of humans is unconscionable Pro asserts this, but never provides a reason why this is specifically problematic enough to call the entire practice immoral. The asymmetry of information and power is nonunique - human beings assert that power over rodents in everyday life. Changing this is not going to suddenly empower rodents. What this does do is provide some protection for rodent pets (which, last I checked, is still a benefit for some rodents). 6) Context is relative This point is just plain confounding. Pro looks at the complicated context of a lion eating prey, and uses it to say that ALL contextual morality is relative. He never shows how context isn't straightforward in this case. It's not enough to use an analogy - he can't simply state that the context of this particular case is relative by analyzing another. The only point he makes in this regard is that "it is safe to assume that by necessity we must assume that there is an absolute moral standard whose jurisdiction stretches beyond the boundaries of both species," but this is absolute nonsense. We're focusing on humans and their effects on animals of interest. We don't need an absolute moral standard for this because other species outside of this research and its effects don't play a role; we must simply evaluate the effects on life and its quality lost (which, I would say, is an absolute moral standard anyway, though it doesn't have to be). And no, it doesn't validate your approach. Just because it's more difficult to evaluate across species doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your simplicity by comparison doesn't make your evaluation the correct one. The legal understanding of murder is actually strong support for my view. We have to look at the cause and intentions of the research, and not just at the morality of the research itself in a vacuum. 7) Concession on equivalency Pro keeps misunderstanding this point. I've already stated my views on equivalency as completely as I can manage, and no, it's not a concession - Pro assumed from the start of this debate that my position on this issue was opposite his. The reason I said that human experimentation was mainly immoral had to do with utility - using more humans and taking longer to test due to longer life cycles. Another reason I didn't mention is that, unlike with rodents, we can't just breed humans in a lab environment for the purpose of research, and we certainly can't genetically modify them to be identical, or to have certain characteristics of interest for specific tests. We've become effective at these things for rodents, and already have populations available. To do the same for humans would simply compound the problems of captivity and experimentation. Overall, my opponent has tried, time and time again, to peg my arguments as faulted utilizing his views of what my arguments should be. He points out flaws that don't exist (though I'll admit, my arguments are far from perfect), and uses false analogies as attempts to point out more. Last time, back to Pro.

"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...

Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to change the subject of the debate? No. You have utterly failed so far to provide any example of suffering or cruelty necessarily caused by zoos. Factory farms are cruel. The production of animals as comodities is cruel. Keeping some animals as pets or companions is simply not necessarily cruel, and this applies in the household and in zoos. Do not assume that I don't care about animals because I disagree that zoos are cruel. As long as the animals are taken care of and treated well, there is no suffering. I never made the claim humans are better. I don't believe it, either. All I said was that other animals are different from us. As for your last question, why should we take advantage of animals in such ways as riding them? Isn't that cruel? It would certainly be cruel to keep humans to ride around on. Horses and camels don't suffer from it, though, maybe unless one hits them to get them going, which I don't approve of. If you think it's cruel to keep animals in zoos, you should also think it cruel to keep them as pets, use them or otherwise interfere with their natural behavior in any way. Do you?


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs be Permitted?

Patients would be more informed than they are under the current system. Numerous advertisements lack sufficient information about the effectiveness of the medications. For instance, Lunesta is promoted through an image of a moth floating through a bedroom window, hovering over a person sleeping peacefully. In reality, Lunesta helps patients fall asleep 15 minutes quicker after six months of treatment and provides an additional 37 minutes of sleep per night. The majority of ads rely on emotional appeals, with few providing information about the causes of the condition, risk factors, or significant lifestyle changes. A study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements found that 82% made factual claims and 86% made logical arguments for product usage. However, only 26% discussed the causes, risk factors, or prevalence of the condition.[1] This means patients are not receiving balanced information that would inform them that taking a pill is not a magical solution to their problems. In fact, a study conducted in the US and New Zealand revealed that patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products that had been advertised to consumers, and consumers could not recall more than four different medication products.[2] This indicates that patients' decisions are not more informed but rather pressured towards advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6-13. [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor shall receive either" -Benjamin Franklin With these words in mind, I strongly oppose the resolution put forward that: 'A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased'. For the sake of clarification I shall define the following terms in this debate: 1. a just society shall from now be known as a society where the rights, and liberties of all persons are ensured, and appropriate punishment/rehabilitation may be done by a competent court against those who would breach other's rights. 2. presumed consent shall refer to an official consent for organ procurement, and this consent shall be assumed within the law. 3. deceased shall refer to anyone who is declared dead by a competent person (a person with such an authority). My value for this debate is "inherent freedom" because legally each person is born with the freedom which allows them to make decisions so long as these decisions do not infringe on another's rights, and vice versa. My value criterion is "universal law" for it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate. I have the following positive contentions: 1. Inherent Freedom 2. Impracticality Within Application 3. One Owns Oneself 4. Unneeded Legislation Where there is a lack of anything I give the following negative contentions: 1. General Incoherency, Lack of Model, Breach of format 2. Lack of Evidence 3. Naturalism, Empathy, and Justness I reserve the right to add, and subtract as so required before the last round. I shall furthermore possible break these contentions and may choose to discuss only certain in this round. Positive Contention 1: Inherent Freedom a. Any legislation that breaches fundamental human rights is unjust; b. The legislation of this resolution breaches fundamental human rights. c. Ergo: The legislation of this resolution is unjust The major premise is chairpersons self evident. We have declared that each person has been endowed with certain rights which must not be breached, these are the universal human right laws. Ex ve termini of "just society" this premise is self-evident beyond doubt. Chairpersons let us begin with the freedom of religion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assures each person of freely choosing a religion, and practicing it. Furthermore Article 3 of this Declaration assures each person of the freedom of security of one's self. August chairpersons in many religions such as Judaism, and Islam the deceased body has spiritual worth.[1] In these religions the burial of the deceased body is thought eminent for the person dead. Not only does the state have the responsibility to comply with the deceased's will, but by applying this law you would also cause punitive damage to the family. No just society can breach these fundamental human rights, and therefore the right of organ procurement is draconian no matter the apparent need. This concludes our minor premise and therefore defeats the resolution in terms of justness. This is however not the only reason. In modern days, honorable chairpersons, the act of cryogenicizing a person is becoming common. Cryogenics has worked on mice, and scientists assume that in another hundred or so years it can work of humans as well.[2] For all intents and purposes these people are pronounced dead, however with they have paid great amounts of money to be preserved at low tempreatures. Will such persons be exempt from this law? They are after all deceased. However that would cause an unfairness, and further problems. Again it would be a breach of a person's fundamental right given here by Article 3. Positive Contention 2: Impracticability Within Application a. Any just legislation necessarily has a practical application b. This legislation does not have a practical application c. Ergo: This legislation is not just The resolution hath demanded a modal, a framework from my worthy opponent. However he has besides copying his argument, and making little to no sense done nothing more. I therefore raise these questions which must be adequately addressed. Who, pray tell, shall monitor which corpse should be mutilated? If one corpse is chosen instead of the other would it not be unfair for the corpse chosen, assuming both did not want to give consent? What if one wished to donate an organ to a particular person, how would that fit in with the framework that my opponent have in mind? Will these organs be for sale? Who will get the money? Are these organs now the property of the state? All of these questions need answers or the chairpersons must at once dismiss the legislation brought up by my opponent on the charge that it seeks to lay out a principle which is in practice unfair. The first premise is clear: if the application would cause harm to the populous, then the legislation need be unjust. Such a legislation (unless my opponent provides a framework) will marginalize people in cases, and is therefore unjust. Positive Contention 3: One Owns Oneself "...every man has a Property in his own Person...the individual has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did." -John Locke a. The organ, as the body is under the ownership of the individual, and no just legislation would breach this ownership. b. The current legislation breaches this ownership. c. Ergo: This current legislation is unjust. The thirteenth amendment of the United States of America is the best proof of the application of this argument. The argument is actually quite similar. While it is always nice to have blacks as slaves to do manual labor, and I am sure with them as slaves costs would be lesser, we gave them a right. For they are born with the right to self. Today my opponent would bring forth the same oppressive, perverse, disgusting regime where he is once more trying to make the blacks slaves for some form of utility. The major premise is self evident. Each person is endowed with certain rights, and the Human Declaration in Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, and Article 4 guarantees this universal right. The minor premise is also self evident that it would breach these fundamental rights, it would try and take the ownership of one's body away from oneself. This is the height of immorality, and unjustness. No amount of utility in one form can over rule the fundamental ownership of one's body. If my opponent contends this then let him openly admit that this world would be better by keeping blacks as slaves, for it would reduce costs. 4. Positive Contention 4: Unneeded Legislation a. Any legislation which is unneeded is unjust b. The current legislation is unneeded c. Ergo: The current legislation is unjust. The first premise may be defended by the fact that any legislation uses capital to ensure, and useless legislation wastes time, and money which could be used in more ethical means, and such legislation is therefore unjust. The second can be shown by the fact that day by day the number of people dying are decreasing going from 32 in 1990 to only 18 in 2000. Also as research is improving more and more artificial organs, dead fetus organs, animal organs, and stem cells are being used. Within the next five years (to apply such a legislation would take longer) the need for human organs would decrease even more. It is then pointless, and foolish to endorse such a legislation.[3] In fact Harvard University published today viz. 11.10.14 the first successful process where an organ was brought back to life using stem cells.[4] There is therefore no need for such a policy. I shall give my negative material in my next round (something the Lincoln-Doughlas format recommends). My summary however will consist of much what needed to be said in my positive case. I summarize the current by stating that my opponent had a duty to provide an explanation with his copied work. He does not do so, even the copied work (which covers 80% of all written) is an appeal to authority for while the law of thermodynamics may have been stated there is no explanation why it affirms naturalism, nor is the philosophical/scientific community of this view. It is also sad that my opponent does not provide a modal, something which this format makes binding on him, he also does not argue the resolution but rather besides the point. His entire case is based on the belief that we as human beings "should" or "ought" to donate our organs, he in no way shows why these organs should be donated even if the respective people are against it. His argument therefore do nothing for his case. In effect while he may attempt to show (incorrectly as I hope to show) that we "ought" to give our organs or donate our organs my worthy opponent does not give any reasoning why this out ways the freedom, and the rights of the people involved. I on the other hand provided arguments with syllogisms (another thing required but not provided by Zaradi), for negating the resolution. In conclusion having supported my value of "inherent freedom", and debased my opponent's case, I urge a negation of the resolution that states: a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://research.physics.illinois.edu... [3]http://www.ahc.umn.edu... [4]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, "Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema." -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. "In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal.

Here's one for the Conservatives ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Jefferson once said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. " Today, the manufacturing, buying, posession and distribution of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in all but 2 states: Florida and New Mexico. I support the legalization of this drug for several reasons: 1. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " yet the law disregards one's right to utilize the effects of mushrooms to enhance/practice their religious beliefs. 2. In addition to religious freedoms, individuals in the United States should have the right to ingest anything of their choosing - especially if it is not a narcotic or the chemical composition of the drug is natural. That is to say, mushrooms are grown wild in the enviornment and if people want to pick them and eat them and/or give some to their friends, that should not be a crime. 3. Mushrooms are not addictive either physically or psychologically. If continued mushrooms use is excessive within a short period of time, a tolerance will build giving the drug little to no effect anyway. Additionally, studies show that one's desire to ingest "magic" mushrooms decreases over time. 4. Mushrooms were legal in the U. S. until 1968, and the world was just fine prior to that year while they were still legal. Thus we can assume that there will not be incredibly dramatic, awful consequences for the legalization of mushrooms. 5. Safety: Mushrooms are realtively safe drugs. The toxicity is one and a half times that of caffeine, and the mortality rate as a result of mushroom's toxicity is an incredibly low 0.016%. 6. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine conducted a study regarding magic mushrooms. 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" while being under the mushroom's effects (which lasts 2 - 12 hours; usually between 4 - 8). Two months after using psilocybin mushrooms, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Further, the "bad trips" that can result from usage were reported to be easily managed by the researchers and did not have a lasting negative effect on the subject's sense of well-being. 7. As with all illegal drugs, legalization of a controlled substance would eliminate the black market buying and selling of drugs which would in turn reduce the number of criminals in this country. I understand why not all drugs can or should be legal, however, mushrooms is not one of them. 8. It is wrong to compare individuals who take magic mushrooms with hardened drug addicts. Not only are the effects of mushrooms much different from other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or meth, but mushrooms are also less addictive and less harmful to the body in both the long and short term. 9. Additionally, consider the positive effects mushrooms have on individuals (spiritual enlightenment, euphoria, etc. ). Most people who are 'high' on mushrooms do not feel compelled to put the lives of others in danger or at risk by, say, driving a car while under the influence, or acting violently towards another individual. Rather people who use mushrooms report feeling closer with nature and want to be outdoors. If not, they're enjoying closed or open-eyed visuals and are more concerned/distracted by what they're seeing and feeling internally than the desire to venture out and hurt others. This is not my opinion but rather documented in various studies/reports of individuals who are familiar with the use of entheogens. 10. Finally, of course being under the influence of any drug (including caffeine and cold medicine) has the ability to alter one's actions and reactions. This should not be a factor for several reasons. First, for medical reasons my little brother takes testosterone injections on a daily basis. This greatly affects his mood (he is angered more easily) yet his consumption of the drug is not illegal. If someone were to take magic mushrooms for any reason - spiritual or medical (they have been known to help with cluster headaches) - it should not be against the law. Why? Other legal drugs that are prescribed or not affect our reflexes, chemical imbalances, moods, or ability to complete tasks / reasoning. Rather than outlaw these things, our society has sought to warn (i. e. the warning to not operate automobiles after taking Nyquil) and/or educate, such as via D. A. R. E. programs or groups like M. A. D. D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I believe that like alcohol, if people are educated regarding the effects of mushrooms, they can make better decisions that would eliminate or highly prevent consumption from interfering with the lives of others and causing disaster. Similarly, just as it is socially accepted (and promoted) for there to be a 'sober force' with an individual(s) who has been drinking, for example, a similar concept can be attributed to the consumption of shrooms. In conclusion, just one of those arguments is reason enough to support the legalization of mushrooms, however, I have provided 10. For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must argue that mushrooms should not be legal and why. Their reasoning should outnumber and/or outweigh my arguments. Because my points are mostly rooted in fact, Con would have to negate those facts in order for their case to be valid.

1. On this first point you say that only 30000 have died because of drugs. First off thats in one year and for a certain drug overdose or something in that line. What my point is including is all deaths relating to drugs including from overdosing to things like driving when under the influence of drugs. At to date millions have died because of the drugs. 2. The point of prisons is to prove that if you do something illegal then you will be punished. To group every other argument you made we shouldn't just make drugs legal because we cant stop them right now. If anything we should tighten our standards against anti drug not just make them legal. Its like making murder legal just because we cant stop it from happening. 3. This point you really never touched except saying it contradicts my next point s which ill get to. But whats the point of banning drugs is to keep people at full health at all times. 4. The point to this point not contradicting point 3 is that if we allow drugs to be legal our whole government will collapse economy and society are examples of that. Once that happens we will be sitting ducks for imperialistic countries that are angered by the US to strike us down. The other example I used was during NAM when soliders were given drugs it hurt them and their families when they returned. Also its not dehumanizing to place drug dealers and druggies with murderers and rapists. It was the choice they made and they should deal with the consequences. Especially if they deal drugs, for the reasons in point 1. 5. This basically ties in with point 4 so just argue it there. Keeping drugs criminalize is the only way to keep our society the great society it is. Do not decriminalize drugs if anything vote for neg to strengthen anti drug programs and strengthening against them. DONT CAVE IN, STAY STRONG Vote Neg

Well, I guess I should restate my argument. Pedophila is an act of speech and because people who makes the commercials have freedom of speech, then pedophila is justified as a legal action.

I argue that drug use in the US should be fully legalized, legalizing all forms of drugs, not simply marijuana. I have the burden of proof to convince voters that fully legalizing all drugs makes logical sense.

I'm not sure if this is satire. I don't think it is. To legalize toxic poisons is to support death and addiction. It does not matter if the buyer of a drug is aware of the dangers of the drug before buying it. People know that cigarettes kill them, but they still buy cigarettes anyway. Making something illegal is the best way to get rid of danger. I support marijuana legalization. I don't support meth, or LSD, or heroin. I don't think any sane person would support the legalization of those. If all drugs are made legal, the country will be left in a state of anarchy. It is wrong to drive while under the influence of drugs. It is wrong to take illegal drugs. It is wrong to sell illegal drugs. What you are suggesting here, sir, is a form of legal suicide. I don't think suicide is a very good thing to legalize. To ban drugs is not to regulate the human body. To ban drugs is to keep the human body safe. A person COULD potentially shoot themselves with a staple gun in the crotch, but it won't be very enjoyable. Drugs didn't exist in ancient times, sir. We invented them, and we must destroy them. They alter the mind, they change behavior, they are a highly lucrative and deadly business that must be kept under lock and key by law enforcement. There would be many problems if an individual had complete control over his or her body. Humans are irrational beings. Read "The Imp of the Perverse" By Edgar Allan Poe. Your second reason is equally absurd. Cocaine did not become popular because marijuana was expensive. Cocaine got popular because it took people on acid trips. It had nothing to do with marijuana. Marijuana was not only high priced in the old days- it was illegal. It was illegal because the big tobacco industries wanted to avoid competition from marijuana. Marijuana is actually simply a relaxing, smokable plant with very few side effects. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legalized. It's easy to grow and it brings in a hefty profit. As for cocaine, though- well, it's insane. Watch "Reeefr Madness" for some stupid propaganda. In reason two, you're ignorant about how economic processes work. The more money we put into the war on drugs, the more drugs lose. When we fight something, it declines. If we fight drugs enough, the prices will go up so high that nobody will buy them. That's what we're aiming for. And if drug dealers develop a new, cheaper, more powerful drug, then we simply eradicate that one as well. Lower prices would mean MORE drugs sold, not LESS. I think you think you've uncovered some sort of counter-intuitive loophole. You haven't, sir. Laws are exactly what they seem. Laws are for keeping people safe. If we legalize heroin, most people won't use heroin. But some people will. And they'll die, or they won't be arrested for possession of heroin. Today, you can get arrested for simply owning heroin. In your insane world, police won't be able to arrest people who are holding a big bag of heroin. Sane people don't use heroin. But insane people do use heroin. laws are put in place to keep the insane people incheck. I'm not sure why we would need to legalize a drug, if most people wouldn't take that drug anyway unless they had a death wish. It seems very risky. We could make murder legal- Heck, we could do the whole Purge. But it would suck. Big time. Nobody can have a good life while using drugs- aside from marijuana. Drugs are poison. Addictive, deadly poison. We must remove temptation to reduce temptation. 1 in 3 adults might try drugs during their lives. That does not mean they should have. Maybe they only took marijuana. That's fine. Heroin drives people insane. It kills people. It drives people over the edge. Drug addicts should be offered help. But it does not help them to legalize the very thing which hurts them. They would not be more likely to seek help if we legalized drugs. They would go on a drug binge and then die. There is a correct way to go about drugs. And that is to make them illegal.

1. What we are dealing with here is a conflict between idealism and reality, and using the government to regulate harmful substances is a slippery slope! First I would like to add that I personally would not like to live in china! that is why I ignored your statement about the government successfully winning the war and because of the age group you mentioned. Find me the census on 21 years or older because I do not condone children smoking pot! 2. I feel that I am a responsible adult and can make decisions for myself! Addiction and health problems are indeed a concern, but where do we draw the line? Driving your car is both dangerous and addicting, football is dangerous and addicting, swimming, sun tanning.. etc The kind of control you are talking about comes from a dictatorship. (Any form of government works on paper until you add in people!) The flaw in your proposition is that I really don't see you taking down Phyllip-Morris or Budweiser! Although I do agree with you from an idealist perspective.. But in reality, it is a contradiction and marijuana is less harmful than a lot of things people love! 3. I do wish people were lazier, think of all the terrible things that happen when people get motivated. It may seem like a weak excuse at first but think about it, how much of our life is truly necessary? Drink water, Eat, sleep, poop, vitamins, exercise.. etc I think we complicate life with our obsession with being motivated! I think that thriving is far more important than getting things done! Now this better world you describe, I would say that if you met me, you would know how much I preach about how much we could accomplish if we could all set aside our differences, drop our daily comfort zone routines and create something amazing! But I am awakened by the realization that I am living in a chain of 7 billion, and its possible, this chain has about 2 billion weak links! 4.Again, the idealist in me is finding it hard to debate your logic, however the reason I pointed out "The thing you love" is because not everyone is like you.. there is something about you that is a part of the "consumer machine"! (Like having a job). despite our reasoning and foresight we are a creature of pleasure and pain, for some people pain is their pleasure! I have a hard time telling people what to do with their bodies until it harms me! Some people are obviously creepy and a danger to themselves and others, but that hardly describes people getting high from marijuana! 5.Cannibalism? Really? You are gonna have to be clear why you think eating human flesh and smoking weed are comparable! I would pull it way down the scale of danger to around drinking a red bull and scuba diving! You are also going to have to give me evidence for people smoking weed and hurting other people! No offence but, that was a poor analogy! 6.In conclusion, I think you have good moral values that parallel my own, However my extreme idealism involves having no government and complete freedom with education and understanding, not enforcement and incarceration!

This will be a short debate on whether or not ABM should be allowed in DDO. I will take the position of Pro. I do believe that ABM should not be banned on DDO, and should be allowed to continue its (rather outrageous) practices.

Thank you Mikel for that touching story about your grandmother. May she rest in peace. Now I want to tell you about three other stories about assisted suicide. These are the stories of Barbara Wagner, Kate Cheney, and Randy Stroup and they all live in Oregon, a state since 1998 that has allowed assisted suicide to be a treatment for patients. Let's tell the story of Barbara first, then move to Kate and finally to Stroup's story. Barbara was a 64 year old suffering from lung cancer in the state of Oregon. She was on Medicare and she asked the state for to lowered the cost for medicine that she thought she was going to get. Instead of the $4,000 a mouth drug plan her doctor prescribed to her, she was given drugs for assisted suicide that costs around $50. Wagner went on ABCNews and told her story saying that "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from a doctor and we will stand there and watch you die" (her words, not mine). Wagner got the medicine she wanted from the state and lived for another year around people she cared about. Kate was a 85 year old women also from Oregon that according to a professional psychiatrist, Kate was cognitively impaired and that means that she could not remember recent events or people and was not mentally stable to ask if her life can be taken away. Sadly this doctor was moved away Kate and the second physician found that she was depressed and that it was treatable. Instead of being treated for her depression, she got in touch with Dr. Peter Goodwin, a medical doctor at the pro-euthanasia organization "Compassion in Dying". After battling cancer for 22 years, she died by assisted suicide on March 1998 death. One of the first assisted suicides in the state of Oregon after the passing of the new bill allowing euthanasia could have been preventable with any kind of Antidepressant and a better handling of her mental state. Finally we get to Randy Stroup more happier story. Randy like Wagner applied and asked the State of Oregon to help him provide for the medicine he needed to combat that cancer he had. Like Wagner he was on Medicare and like Wagner was denied treatment. According to Stroup "(How could they) not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life". After his story hit the media, the state gave him the medicine he asked for and should be provided for. All three of these people live in the same state, all three had some kind of cancer, all three needed medicine to combat their cancers and yet all three were denied from the start to the right to get health care and all three where instead given the right to die. To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want. It sounds to me like the State of Oregon is using the Right to Die as a way of avoiding the right health care and medicine. Oregon is also a very rich state and has a small population within the US and if this kind of pro-euthanasia law like this were put in into action in states like New York and California then we could see state saving millions of dollars for health care but killing people that don't really want to die and just want to get to there medicine and treatment. Also studies have shown that 93-94% of people wanting to commit suicide suffer from a mental disorder and that most patients wanting to commit suicide have under gone extreme emotional and physical pain leading them into depression and of those patients many want to seek help to deal with their depression and they use the reason for suicide as way of crying for help. Most disorders for depression are treatable and after the patient gets that treatment they usually never talk or rarely think of suicide again. If patients deal with extreme pain and ask to commit suicide then that pain is very much treatable. According to the a February 1993 in the Anesthesiology, 70-80% to all cases of widespread cancer is manageable by oral administration and that many treatments of pain reduction are blocked or not understood by the medical staff. In 1969, psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross outline 5 stages of the dying process, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Since that time Dr. Kubler-Ross has stated that suicide is wrong for terminal ill patients because she states that "(But assisting a Suicide is) cheating them of those lessons like taking a student out of school before final exams. That's not love, it projecting your own unfinished business". So that means when a patient is depressed then suicide is not the right answer and leading them to acceptance of that fact that they are going to die is better for that person. My final point will be the legal and moral troubles around assisted suicide. Like in the cases of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup, states can use the euthanasia laws to not allow people medicine and override the patients right to life and health care. Because of this example, the right to death may conflict to the right of health care or to life leading to a lot of legal and ethnic troubles. Also if we allow assisted suicide to happen, the views on suicide may change from from "We respect your wishes" to "we don't care if you live or die" allowing suicide outside assisted suicide to be lawful and socially allowed. Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have. That seems to me that assisted suicide is just a easy way to avid the real problems with someone ill or healthy that want to die. Sources are http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.herpeculiarlife.blogspot.ca... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.deathasalesman.com...


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Be Permitted?

The FDA's Oversight: More Detrimental than Beneficial

I will address each of Con's counterarguments:

1. The prohibition of alcohol's past failure doesn't negate the FDA's current practice of allowing access to hazardous substances while restricting widely-used, low-risk medicines like antibiotics. Consider another non-recreational drug: Tylenol, which can easily lead to fatal liver failure if overdosed. Why is Tylenol available over the counter, yet antibiotics require a prescription and associated expenses? (http://1.usa.gov...)

2. "If the FDA deems a product should be removed, inspected, and re-approved for market to protect consumers, there is no issue with that." Drug manufacturers and consumers who prefer affordable, non-prescription alternatives might disagree. Con's FDA-supported argument doesn't address potential bias. Dietary supplements can be risky, but media and independent research groups have effectively informed the public about their cautious use. Con's 'drug' definition aligns with the government's vague criteria, allowing the FDA to regulate anything related to health, as seen with Cheerios' cholesterol-reducing claim. General Mills did not mislead consumers, as Cheerios' health benefits are intrinsic to its consumption. The FDA's actions, therefore, cannot be justified as public welfare-focused. It is more plausible that drug companies, not consumers, were negatively impacted by the cholesterol claim on the Cheerios box. If a doctor offers a diet change or medication for cholesterol reduction, knowing that Cheerios can help, patients may opt for the dietary change. (http://1.usa.gov...)

3. My argument doesn't hinge on the FDA's imperfections. However, the agency's sluggish response to removing dangerous drugs like Rofecoxib (Vioxx) raises concerns about its safety record and conflicts of interest. (Round 2, Point 3, Examples 2 & 4). As the sole authority on drug safety, the FDA's questionable judgment and lack of competition are problematic. Dr. David Graham, an FDA insider, discusses the agency's prioritization of the pharmaceutical industry over patient safety. (http://www.naturalnews.com...)

4. Con's claim that companies rigorously test drugs to avoid costly lawsuits implies that FDA regulations may not be the sole driver of drug safety. The FDA's stringent requirements have increased drug development costs without a proportional improvement in patient safety. Since 1990, 21 out of 33 recalled drugs were approved by the FDA. (http://bit.ly...)

To answer your questions at the top:The war on drugs is far too serious, but I am on the pro side of stopping drugs. It should be illegal, but with lesser jail sentences (like 9 years instead of 10.)"We can pass laws against getting high in public."We've passed laws about not drinking and driving, public drunkenness, and not smoking in many facilities. And look how that turned out. It's time for an OVERLOAD OF REASONS!!!•Also, many people are trying to make tobacco illegal. In California, there are commercials and webpages all over that are trying to stop it. If smoking tobacco is bad, then smoking marijuana is just as bad. Both of them should be illegal due to health concerns. Also, driving while high is as bad as driving while intoxicated.•True, no one has ever died from smoking too much pot, but it made their lives a living hell. And that may be a bit worse than dying, pending your opinion on the afterlife. •As we both know, the world is trying ever so hard to stop cancer. Marijuana has 60% more cancer-causing particles than tobacco [1]. People smoking marijuana can get pregnant, leading to deformed babies whose lives will be very bad. •While marijuana has never killed anybody, 75 people per year are high on pot while they die. We do not know that this is a coincidence or not. [1]Those are all of the reasons I have today for you. It's been fun, and now it's up to the voters to see what they think![1] http://www.drugfreeworld.org...

The problem of what substances should be legal or should not be legal has been debated over and over in the past. Firmly, I believe that all drugs in the United States should be legalized. 1. Firstly we must recall the main argument for pro-choice members of the US. They use the argument 'It's her body' with that in mind, anything you do to your body should be legal. The fact that a woman can cut a fetus out of her body, but I can't smoke a bit of weed is illogical. 2. It would be a major source of revenue for the United States. Instead of not being able to tax the hell out of all drugs. Right now, even though people are getting drugs, the government doesn't have anything to tax because the dealers definitely aren't the most legal people themselves. If retail stores such as Walmart or Target carried narcotics, it would be a large amount of goods taxable by the US government. 3. People are stupid. They are going to acquire drugs one way or another even if it is illegal. This would also clean out our prison system by keeping people who aren't really hurting anyone in jail, while we are wasting money fighting drugs instead of important things.

Also I would like to convey my dejection towards the fact that at least 1 of the 8 debaters I felt for sure would be in the top 8 of this tournament will be out after this round. Having said this, I will begin by analyzing the resolution and deciding exactly what it means. _______________________________________________________________________________ The resolution begins with, "public health concerns" this phrase is quite clearly plural. Therefor in this debate round I will have to prove that their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. On the other hand the opposite of this resolution and the position my opponent will have to defend is clearly, "Public health concerns do not justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. " Thus my opponent in this round is going to have to show that there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. Furthermore in this round I will be functioning off the paradigm that the human life holds a value that cannot be measured by means of monetary value. I will also be functioning off the value of utilitarianism which in this round will be used to convey the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Within my definition good shall be defined as being of the greatest paradigm. Which in this case shall be the intrinsic value of human life vs. monetary value. ____________________________________________________________________________ Contention 1: Malaria. "Malaria affects more than a billion people worldwide and kills a million -- mainly under age five -- every year, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa. ", this being from the AFP on April 7th 2008. In fact about 9/10ths of the Malaria victims each year are in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that approximately 900,000 deaths occur in sub-saharan africa per year because of Malaria. However these are not just any deaths these are unneeded deaths. Specifically we will be examining the United States, a state where malaria is all but non-existent. In fact in many parts of the nation malaria has not occurred at all in the last 3 years. This eradication of Malaria was in part due to many measures by the state. Anti-mosquito spraying was of a great service, as was drainage control and the removal of mosquito breeding sites. However an equally important aspect of the eradication was more focused on the human side of the spectrum. This aspect was and is anti-malaria drugs, which prevented the disease even if a human being happened to be bit by a female mosquito carrier. These drugs still exist today, in the United States they are primarily used to protect citizens who are leaving the country. The CDC's website actually recommends taking them before going to specific regions, . http://wwwn.cdc.gov... . Africa is one of these regions. This of course raises a question. If these drugs are so easy to come by that they can be given to an everyday traveler why exactly does this disease still exist in parts of the world? The answer is rather simple and very depressing, these drugs cost money and of course a large part of sub-Saharan Africa is currently living in immense poverty. Thus in the status quo we, as a society, are valuing a profit over the lives of 900,000 people annually. While some companies in the status quo are taking an initiative on themselves to combat this problem without outside pressure the fact remains that close to a million people are dieing each year. This can be combated and helped by government violation of pharmaceutical patents. If the government of not only the United States but also the governments of Sub-Saharan African nations have the ability to manufacture these drugs at a cost that denies a profit margin the chances of these drugs reaching the people in need will increase. In fact, violation of pharmaceutical patents could potentially allow for governments to distribute these drugs at no cost for the simple exchange of a minor increase in taxes. This of course has the drawback of decreasing profit for the patent owners but the saving on even one life that did not need to die far outweighs this impact. Therefor I stand open for my opponents case.

In this debate my opponent be arguing that people should do drugs. My opponent may go first.

For the final round, Pro has elected not to add any new points, but to examine some that I have made and refute them. However, I have some conflicting opinions. "The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. " I wish you had elaborated on this idea, because that in and of itself would make an interesting debate. As I explained in Round 1, I believe that the government has no business protecting people from themselves. Everyone has a right to make unhealthy decisions that will very likely harm them. It may not be smart to smoke two packs a day, but that is the choice you are free to make in a free, democratic, First World society. Now, you could argue that the government should protect us from ourselves, and many people do believe that. But since Pro failed to explain her logic behind the above, I see no reason to give any further justification for my viewpoint. ". .. my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. "With this quote, Pro appears to have added an entirely new dimension to this debate. Never before has she mentioned that multiple laws should be passed. Only in this final round has she "made laws plural". Disappointingly, I was unable to hear what laws Pro had in mind, since she brought this up so late in the debate. Pro also tries to refute my environmental argument with a few hasty generalizations and no backing from sources of any kind. She appears to be hinting that cigarette butts ought to be treated as litter, which I agree with, but this has little to do with the argument of whether or not smoking should be legal. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

No, not all drugs should be legalized in the U.S. 1. because if smoking is allowed anywhere, asthma attacks to different people are bound to happen and possible death, 2. Most drugs are too addicting and can distract drivers, 3. they harm the environment, which the environment such as tree, grass, flowers, etc. is what are keeping us alive and full of oxygen.

I have the burden of proof in regards to proving that there is a single, rational, benefit to taking them.My opponent has to anti BOP meaning that she has to counter ALL my points so that even if there is a SINGLE benefit she has not disproved by round 5, I will win.The reasoning behind this dynamic is her definition of being duped means that people taking antidepressants (for the obvious purpose of being less depressed) would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off.I would like us to stick to people who stick to prescribed doses and not people who overdose or under-dose since they are not qualifying as test subjects as they have not obeyed rules of the test.I accept.

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.

This new government proposal has the goal of encouraging students to make healthier choices, by not exposing them to unhealthy ads in their school enviroments. In this article on NBC NEWS, they explain the goals of this proposal. http://www.nbcnews.com... According to the CDC, the precentage of overweight students in US public schools has grown since 2003. http://www.cdc.gov... The proposal of eliminating unheathy drink and food advertisements in schools will expose students to make healthier decisions inside and outside of schools. According to this website, making junk foods available is associated with weight gain. http://www.nber.org... With this proposal, it will help many students lead a better and healthier lifestyle by encouraging them to by healthy foods.

Drugs are bad. I am very proud to say that I have never so much as tried any recreational drugs. I see no compelling reason as to why I should try any recreational drugs. I care too much about my health. Alcohol is bad. I am very proud to say that I have never dome more than take a few sips of alcohol. I see no compelling reason as to why I should drink alcohol. I care too much about my health. They tried outlawing alcohol once. It didn't work very well. People made their own alcohol and it caused huge amounts of crime. In fact, prohibition was so unsuccessful and counterproductive that it was repealed just 13 years later. Prohibition was clearly a mistake. That's fine. Mistakes help us move forward. Or do they? We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs. As of 2004, nearly 20% of American prisoners are in prison on drug charges [1]. This tells us a few things, which include the fact that the war on drugs has hardly been successful. It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property. We happen to be in an economic downturn. If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy. And remember that big deficit that the US has? And you know those income taxes that we all hate? Well, we wouldn't have to increase income tax as much if we legalized and taxed drugs. Why stay in the US? If drugs were legalized in Mexico, it would virtually end the drug war. Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers? It's really the same way inside the US, though on a much smaller scale. If drugs were legalized, there would be fewer gangs since it would be easier, cheaper, and safer to buy drugs at a store. There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers. The former is obviously a group of people who we want to be hurt, and the latter we actually also want to be hurt. We don't want them to be hurt because we have a deep-seated hatred for police officers, but we want them to hurt because police officers get cut when there are too many, so when police officers get cut, it means that our crime rate is going down, which is a good thing. I fear that I may have already said too much for an introduction, but if anybody is still willing to join my poorly organized debate, I welcome it! 1. http://www.albany.edu...