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

Animal Testing: A Necessary Component in Medical Advancement

In response to my opponent's concerns, I wish to clarify that I have never claimed animal testing to be infallible. Animals serve as the closest approximation to human trials, providing valuable insights into drug safety and efficacy. While physiological differences between humans and animals may introduce slight discrepancies in results, animal testing is crucial for delaying human trials, ensuring the drug is as safe as possible before human administration.

Once a drug has been deemed safe and effective in animals, it proceeds to small-scale human trials, adhering to stringent laws designed to protect human subjects. In-vitro testing, although useful, cannot definitively determine a drug's safety, necessitating animal testing for FDA approval. The case of Vioxx, withdrawn from the US market in 2004 due to unforeseen cardiovascular side effects, highlights the limitations of animal testing. Despite animal and human trials, Merck, the company responsible for Vioxx, faced accusations of data manipulation and reliance on flawed animal studies.

While human trials become the primary source of data once initiated, animal testing remains essential for preliminary safety assessments. The controversy surrounding Vioxx underscores the importance of prioritizing human trials over animal studies when evaluating cardiovascular effects. Genetic research, encompassing homology and plasticity studies, aids in selecting the most suitable animal models for human disease. Mice, for instance, share 99% genetic homology with humans, making them ideal for disease modeling.

Genetic manipulation in animals, such as disease induction, parallels human disease pathology, facilitating the discovery of treatments. In-vitro research using human DNA is effective but cannot replicate genetic manipulation practices crucial for understanding disease progression and drug effects. Animal genetic studies have contributed significantly to the development of drugs and vaccines for obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions. Research with dogs led to insulin for diabetes patients, while leprosy vaccines were derived from studies on armadillos.

Animal testing remains essential for the development of new treatments and vaccines, including those for tuberculosis and various cancers. While in-vitro studies suggest drug efficacy, clinical trials on animals are required to ensure safety before human trials. Many potential treatments fail to advance to human trials due to safety concerns identified in animal studies. The safety evidence provided by animal testing, though not absolute, is invaluable.

In conclusion, the continuation of animal testing is justified by its contributions to medical advancement. It has facilitated improvements in human health through genetics research, vaccine development, and the refinement of surgical techniques and disease

I would like to additionally offer to all interested that I would be glad to debate this topic with other people. Finally, I would like to encourage bbowhan to collaborate with others n the assembly of his arguments, as per rule 8 below. The topic of bestiality and zoophilia are questionable and oft sticky topics (pun intended), which generally produce a visceral reaction in the course of their discussion. Historically, sex with animals has been among the acts considered most obscene, an abomination above most -if not all- other things considered abominations. Despite this, there are in fact a great many things which human emotion arguably gets wrong about ethics: the human desire for revenge, forced heteronormativity, fear of change. In many people the list of emotional malfunction goes far deeper, into neuropathy, and psychopathy. Emotion is an approximation at best of "what is right", and as such, it becomes a valid question as to whether the visceral but none-the-less emotional animus against sex with animals is appropriate. As such, this debate is to explore whether such an animus is philosophically justified, or whether that animus is something that we ought overcome.1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing. Upon mutual agreement, round 5 may also include a final counter-rebuttal.2) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, CON agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting, rounds shall be offset by one post3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only. Round 2 "initial arguments" are to be independent.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted, if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".10) Additional rules as presented by CON shall be discussed in comments before being accepted.

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.

"Heaven is by favor; it were by merit your dog would go in and you would stay out. Of all the creatures ever made, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one. . . that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain." Mark TwainValue: Justice giving each their due (John Locke) infringing upon others rightsValue Premise: Distribution of freedom----------------------------------------------------------------------------Animal rights outlined by Respect, No exploitation, Allowed to procreate, No cruel acts, no killing for sport/no reason.----------------------------------------------------------------------------right-a freedom ensured (requiring protection if threatened)The resolution asks that today's round determines what a just society is, and within such a society, should the rights of animals exist? We can then interpret Justice as my Value. Let the aff break down Justice. Justice must concern itself with the protection and cultivation of given rights. Therefore, no law, institution, or person is just if it violates or ignores upon the rights of others. We then interpret that a just society formally acknowledges the rights of all individuals recognized to have rights within that society. We finally sum up justice into two main ideas: that work hand in hand.1) Justice includes giving each recognized individual their due.2) The rights within justice can not be infringed upon by others.Rights themselves structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality perceived within the society. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority. Contention 1) To accept that animals have rights only requires that one accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals. "To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being has on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense." (2) Korsgaard's justificationThis debate is only concerned with human to animal interaction because animal rights exist only in animal to human interaction, as humans alone have the power to recognize those rights while animals do not. To that end, there can be no expectation of reciprocation from the animals to humans. Do animals merit moral consideration? Can animals be wronged in a morally relevant way? Rights are the product of human reason, reason that enables us to recognize at minimum our obligation not to cause harm to the people and things we interact with.In essence, simply because humans can abuse animals does not make us justified in doing so. That is not to say that humans and animals moral claims are equal, nor are human rights and animal rights equal. Because humans are superior in reason and interpretation our rights are superior to those of animals. Similarly though, that humans have superior rights does not strip animals of all rights or moral consideration. This is acceptable because merely "that non-human animals can make moral claims on us does not in itself indicate how such claims are to be assessed and conflicting claims adjudicated. Being morally considerable is like showing up on a moral radar screen - how strong the signal is or where it is located on the screen are separate questions." (2) Korsgaard's justification We accept that animals experience pain, but also that they are incapable of reciprocating recognition of rights and therefore we do not senselessly abuse animals or expect them to recognize our right not to experience pain. If any being has an interest in avoiding pain, that being has a moral claim to pain avoidance because as Korsgaard so eloquently phrased it "to be in pain is a pain, and that is no trivial fact." (2)What the moral significance of those claims are situational and beyond the scope of the resolution because if we accept that any being that has an interest in avoiding pain deserves to have that interest taken into account (recognized) by an individual capable of recognizing that right, then we accept that there are restrictions governing what humans may do to animals. From that conclusion we deduce that animals have rights; and that those rights are due recognition if they are to have significance.By contrast, to assert that animals have no rights is to assert that there neither are nor ought to be any permissible limitations governing human to animal interaction. If animals have no moral claim whatsoever then there is no action, injury, or abuse which humans may inflict upon the animal kingdom with any consequence to the morality of the person causing the harm, nor to those that witness it. Accordingly, animals are due the right to not be made suffer without cause.Contention 2) If we accept that there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals, then the rights of animals must be recognized by a just society.If animals have rights, then to violate them without cause is unjust. What may constitute a viable cause to violate the rights of animals is another debate entirely and vary by context, but we may stipulate easily that (like with human to human interaction - though the cause to violate the rights of an animal, given that animals have less rights than humans, need not be as compelling as the cause to violate the rights of a human) it is permissible to conceive of a situation where the rights of humans and animals may be I conflict and it would be justifiable for a human to violate the rights of an animal.A just society is of that upholds the values of its citizens. Humans, by our nature, have a sense of humanity and compassion. We do not delight in the suffering of animals, and as such we do not cause what we individually consider to be unnecessary suffering or inflict senseless pain. If we as a society accept that there are certain things that humans should not do to animals, then the task of justice is to prevent those things from occurring. Where animals have the right to not be subjected to unnecessary harm, any violation of that right is unjust. A just society then assumes the responsibility of preventing such an occurrence by codifying morality, accepted human ethical obligation into a system of law where penalties are established for violating those laws.In that, the just society ensures that where any person violates those rights they are due consequence - and animal rights are recognized. If we accept that humans ought not bring about unnecessary harm to the animal kingdom, then we recognize animal right as individuals. A just society, being a reflection of the individuals it is constructed of, then is obliged to ensure that animals not be made to unnecessarily suffer. A society that does recognize animal right son any level does not accept any limitations governing what humans may or may not or ought or ought not do to animals, is unjust then because without recognition of animal rights on any level there is no restriction preventing senseless or causeless animal suffering.In Summary:To accept that animals have rights is to accept that there are certain things that humans shouldn't do to animals. Because there are limitations (moral or otherwise) governing what humans should and should not do to animals, animals have rights that stem form those limitations. Most reasonable humans do not abuse animals for this reason, and because most people disapprove of animal abuse (in the abstract sense) a just society that recognized the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights.I assume refutations will be for rounds 3 and 4, though I am unsure. Yet, to be fair, I will post my rebuttal next round to provide an even amount of refutation. If my opponent preffered a rebuttal in this round, I am trully sorry, but I do hope we can continue rather than stop midway of this debate. Thank You.

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

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

I will start by asking Pro to clarify his clarification: Is he asserting that people are fundamentally different from other animals (as in possession of a "soul" or a definite distinction in thought)? If so, an anatomical basis for that would be useful. Pros I. Animals have pragmatic value to People, at best Pros A> I am not aware of any aspect of game theory that purports to establish "people are optimally a community apart from other entities" and I will vehemently disagree with the assertion both in terms of societal health and in particular this subject. After all, sex with animals will not be an issue under such strict segregation as Pro implies. 1. Stipulated. Perhaps the final word word "tribes" could be broadened to "communities"? 2. Here there is a problem- memetic evolution is at best a metaphor, as the "meme" is not actually a unit in an evolutionary sense [1]. Further, cultural evolution, like all evolutions is by nature competitive in a direct biological way- rich successful rock stars versus a struggling street performer for example. It is true that animal have little direct contribution to culture, but their presence as companions cannot be termed a negative. Also, this topic on pragmatic value has little to do with the ethical question, as Pro has not yet demonstrated an "is therefore ought" connection. Pros B> People have ethical responsibilities from the basis of first principles, which animals cannot take part in. 1. Definition of freedom: stipulated 2. Definition of responsibilities Here Pro overextends his definition, in that he claims that is a person's responsibility to defend others freedom as well as his own. It is superior ethics to do so, but not a responsibility. 3. Definition of fairness: Stipulated, and quite good. 4. The claim of freedom: i. Here, Pro is wrong for the first time. Different animals are well known to have widely varying concepts of identity and theory of mind [2]- which is good from Pros point of view, as otherwise the tricky concept of consensual bestiality could not be addressed. ii. I"m just going to assume that Pro has no analogue to my experiences with horse corralling, were "offering" freedom to an unaware, fleshy automation with no concept of personal liberty was obviously not the issue. Pros C> People are existentially sustainable, animals are not. This entire paragraph is of topic. In the unlikely event of a global pandemic or asteroid collision, we may be able to survive- including taking sufficient living foodstuffs past the crisis to sustain us. In either event, the permissibility of sex with animals is not related. Pros II Difference between Ethical and Pragmatic Concerns: Pros A> "debate is not about pedophilia or the mentally disabled". I'll stipulate to that as well. Hey look at that, three entire paragraphs we both agree belong in another debate! Pros B> This is actually the question at hand, which I hold has not been sufficiently addressed. 1 and 2. These statements seem to be flatly contradictory, in fact I think I must not understand these points- unless Pro is arguing that Reason and Ethics are subjects forbidden forever to all other animals? [3] If so he is wrong, both as far as the far as the future is concerned (an excellent SF series on Uplifting is available from David Brin's Uplift . http://www.davidbrin.com...) and right now. Having known (as I alluded to) a large variety of farm animals up close, I find it impossible to credit the claim that animals don"t have such feelings as we do. Unlike our intellect, there is not even a discernible difference between our emotional [4] and moral [5] capabilities and those of several different species, rather far apart cladistically. Pros III Argument from Common Sense Pros A: 1. The impositions of fertilization may not be different from one of gratification, which unfortunately for Pro, opens the question of whether artificial insemination is part of an ethically abhorrent "sex with animals" topic. 2. Again, a very fundamental "is ought" problem is not being addressed. Even if sex approaches "nothing" in the spectrum of human cruelty to animals, Pro has not given a rationale why a lesser evil is somehow not evil. Pros B: 1. It is a simple fact that humans use animals for food, however that is subsumed by the fact that all animals eat other living things- by definition that"s what animals are. That impositions is axiomatically necessary by the dictates of survival. However, the existence of vegetarianism is a proof that that we don"t need to eat animals- again raising the specter of whether we should. 2. Stipulated, but again pointless. Defending ourselves is not anywhere near the question of whether we can commit an offense against an animal. One question, though- would and animal have a right to defend itself against a rape? IV. Pros conclusions A. Ethics are NOT shown to be for people alone and I hold that the opposing argument is more compelling [6] B. I'll stipulate to this, but note again' that ethical acceptability is is not shown by the arguments so far. C. Some imposition may be acceptable by necessity (not demonstrated so far) but I deny the ethics of adding anything to that necessity by choice. D. Having sex with animals is not ethically permissible. --------------------- 1 . http://books.google.com... 2 . http://books.google.com... 3 . http://books.google.com... 4 . http://books.google.com... 5 . http://books.google.com... 6 . http://books.google.com...

I shall not rebut anything in this round, and shall leave refutation and defense for the next round, instead presenting my arguments now. C1) Needless Suffering All sentient beings must have a right against needless suffering by the basic essence of morality itself. Needless suffering is considered a fundamental due that must be given to all sentient creatures. Any being that is denied that fundamental due is being treated unjustly, as fairness requires certain fundamental moral dues. As justice is defined as “giving each their due”, this fundamental due must be ascribed to all beings, including animals. The general goal of most fundamental dues is to prevent needless suffering, e.g. life, liberty, food, bodily integrity, et cetera. Morality itself is a set of ideals structured to prevent needless suffering. The concept of morality is to uphold a generic right against needless suffering. Most animals can feel pain. This is in accordance with the definition. The pain can be processed not only by nociceptors but also other sensory neurons that allow the nerves to process discomfort as “pain”. This pain needs to be further “strengthened” by sentient emotions, allowing for extreme discomfort. [1] P1. There is a generic right against needless suffering. P2. Animals can needlessly suffer. C. Animals have a right against needless suffering. Based on the basic aspects of ethics, all beings have a right against unnecessary suffering and pain. Exploitation of animals for human purposes viz. by hunting, ritual slaughter, slaughter for meat, etc. causes animals unnecessary suffering. Why should animals be denied this basic moral right? Morality and ethics were created for the survival of the moral community. The Golden Rule of ethics states this: “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” [2] Now, the obvious question here is paraphrased: how is the suffering suffered by animals in the hands of humans “needless”? Hunting can be discounted directly as it serves the sole purpose of sadistic human entertainment, as can ritual slaughter as it is illogical. [Here I refer to animal sacrifice which serves no purpose of consumption, etc.] The usage of animals for fur, silk, leather, down, et cetera are also illogical and not necessary. There are faux furs to help keep warm; silk, leather, and down serve no purpose except comfort. So we are lead to consumption. According to the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." [3] The most common cited necessary nutrients "not found in vegetarian diets" are Omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin B12. Collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh, and tofu all contain Vitamin B12. [4] Walnuts, edible seeds, and flaxseed oil all contain Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. [5] Therefore, nutritionally, a vegetarian diet is adequate for living and it is illogically unethical to force a sentient creature to suffer for entertainment (i.e. hunting, Spanish bullfights, eating meat for taste preferences). That is, technically, sadism. Sadism is defined as “the tendency to derive pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation.” [6] The only rebuttal of Pro’s I shall address here is animal testing, as it comes directly under my “Needless Suffering” argument. Animal testing is not reliable. “A 2004 study from the [FDA] found that 92 percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail to be approved. Of those approved, half are withdrawn or relabeled due to severe or lethal adverse effects not detected during animal tests...A 2008 study in the journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals showed that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines successful in nonhuman primates failed in human trials. According to a 2004 study... more than 4,000 studies report efficacy of more than 700 treatments of stroke in animal models. Yet none of the approximately 150 of these treatments tested in humans showed clinical benefit... Drugs intended to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients, previously tested in mice, failed in nearly 150 human critical trials according to a 2013 study.” [7] For an unreliable means of testing, we cannot subject animals to suffering and death. In the case of animal testing being the sole option, we can use humane means of testing rather than not testing at all. “Under the Animal Welfare Act, the USDA issues and enforces regulations regarding humane care, handling, treatment and transportation ... in addition to general husbandry standards related to housing, separation of species, cleanliness, feeding, quarantine procedures, and veterinary care. The law also contains provisions for the use of anesthesia or pain-killing drugs for potentially painful procedures and for the post-operative care of laboratory animals.” [8] There are more effective means of pre-clinical trials than animal testing. In-vitro test models and similar cell culture techniques are very effective. An example is: “EpiDerm, derived from cultured human skin cells, is more accurate than animal tests in identifying skin irritants. In a study...it correctly detected chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits were wrong 40 percent of the time.” [7] Ultimately, even when animal testing is required, there are humane ways to do it without violating the just recognition of animal rights. Therefore, this fundamental right against needless suffering is a due in justice. C2) Symbiosis vs. Exploitation Humans rely on animals for many things. As humans take from animals, they do not “give back” anything, thus allowing for this relationship to be reliant on unfair exploitation. Animals are sentient beings with the ability to think and process emotions, via. the very definition of sentience. Therefore, this exploitation can be equated to the exploitation of a slave, which is considered unjust. A relationship of returning what you take is necessary for justice. If one uses a sentient being x as a “tool” (i.e. asks x to perform actions), then one must pay x with their due. As give and take is a relationship required by justice, the right for a symbiotic relationship is a fundamental due for animals. Else, this one-sided relationship can be considered strictly unjust and unfair, and a tool for discriminative exploitation. C3) Animals and humans have no differences (based on rights) Animals and humans can process emotions and feel pain, physically and psychologically. Ethical human rights apply equally to mature, rational thinking adults, infants, adolescents, and the profoundly mentally handicapped. The mentally disabled and infants have equal capability to think rationally as animals, perhaps even less. As they beget moral and ethical rights, animals also deserve to be treated with compassion and to remain free of cruel and unfair exploitation. The argument is as follows: P1. Moral rights should be ascribed to all sentient beings equally, viz. infants and the mentally handicapped have equal moral and ethical rights as able-thinking adults. P2. Animals are sentient beings. C. Therefore, moral rights should be ascribed to animals. Pro may address these arguments in the next round; I shall address Pro’s initial arguments and prepare my defense in the round following that, in accordance with the debate structure. References[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] Antony Flew, ed. (1979). "golden rule". A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books in association with The Macmillan Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-330-48730-2.[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] Key TJ, Appleby PN, Rosell MS (2006). "Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets". Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 65 (1): 35–41. [5] http://www.bfel.de... - in German.[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...

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.

Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food.- Comment by Sleezehead is right, "cloning of animals is fine." But if you want to talk about animal rights in here than maybe we can if "when we don't eat them" but the fact that we eat it everything there are rights being violating. Take for instant, do you eat chicken? If so, chicken have to go through suffering but at the end of the day we eat it. (beneficial for humans) Chicken neck have to get cut off with all the gush of blood spilling. So animal right is this debate wouldn't be legitament for you to use as your stand against this debate.Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines"My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines."-I did mention quantity. "With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins." but "using them like machines" i don't know where you got that from."factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming."-You going off topic. This debate is not about factory farming. But about animal cloning. "*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. *" farming is different from this debate. but i'll go further in this argument you pose, "They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry." we have a large population to support. we need this to be able to support the population, and it growing fast and large is good for consumers, producers, animals and the environment. "It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming." got the environmental protection agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if such thing happen and they know its not good they'll tackle it.Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity-My opponent is obviously going back to the first round debate. Instead of refutating against my second round debate. This shows he's ignoring my argument."Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty." well you cannot prove so. Because you state "the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct." because they weren't using realble technology at this time. Plus you state poachers, it nature. but this is another country we talking about. Maybe there not taking steps to stop poachers. But if we do clone animal we making more of it to "maintain biodiversity" because if we have one of that "animal" and it dies than it is extinct. because if there was one of it and you clone it to make more of it means even if it dies some of it is still left.Refutation 4: Biomedical ResearchAs I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works.As my rebuttal, as my research show cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural matingMyth: Cloning results in severely damaged animals that suffer, and continue to have health problems all their lives. The vast majority of swine and goat clones are born healthy, grow normally, and are no more susceptible to health problems than their non-clone counterparts. During the early days of what is known as assisted reproductive technologies in livestock, veterinarians noticed that some calf and lamb fetuses grew too large during pregnancy, and had serious birth defects. This set of abnormalities is referred to as “large offspring syndrome,” or LOS. These same abnormalities have also been seen in calf and lamb clones, and have received a lot of attention because they occur at what appear to be higher rates than observed with other assisted reproductive technologies. The syndrome seems to be related to processes that take place outside the body (during the in vitro phase. As producers understand more about the cloning process, the rate at which LOS is observed in calf and lamb clones has been decreasing. The same kind of decrease in LOS rates was observed as people who used technologies such as in vitro fertilization in cattle learned more about the process. LOS hasn’t been seen in swine or goat clones. Most clones that are normal at birth become as strong and healthy as any other young animals. Calf and lamb clones with abnormalities at birth may continue to have health problems for the first few months of life. But after the age of six months, they’re completely indistinguishable in appearance and blood measurements from conventionally bred animals of the same age." Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets "Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage"-Cloning has envolve over the centuries. Some part of it may still be at the experimenting stage, while others are not. As you state yourself "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." you state they'll rather not eat cloned meat. 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. we'll if you state that its still at experimenting stage than why will they "rather not eat cloned meat" when it haven't been cloned. or 36% of the public will want it. Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”. -Yeah, now if you oppose animal cloning will we ever know if it could lead to treatment for human diseases? Some studies have shown that animal have cure to diseases. And facts have shown it. The potential animal cloning holds to treatment for human diseases will not be known until we further. http://www.fda.gov...

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


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

Public opinion on animal testing
Surveys indicate substantial public endorsement for prohibiting the use of animals in testing for particular household items.

An initial thanks is in order first to royalpaladin for engaging me in this debate and second to those of you willing to commit your time and attention to judge this debate.Theoretical Framework: 1) Shared Burden of Proof was agreed to in R1. To win this debate Pro need not with 100% certainty that the Resolution is true, Pro need only to support the resolution better than Con negates it. 2) To win this debate Con must do more than simply refute my arguments. A simple refutation of my arguments only decreases the reliability of my support of the Resolution; in the absence of arguments that actively negate the resolution there is no Con case with which to compare a refuted Pro. Therefore, Con must actually advocate a position that negates the Resolution. 3) It is unproblematic for Pro to run contradictory positions. If Pro were committed to a single position, Pro’s case would sink or swim based on the viability of a single ethical system. This would make the Resolution irrelevant- the debate would then no longer be about the ethical relevance of sentience but about the viability of a given ethical system. My general strategy will be to advocate ethical frameworks that rely on the trait of sentience in determining how living things ought to be treated. If I win that even one is an adequate ethical framework, I have demonstrated the relevance of sentience. A) Utilitarianism: a) All actions have some end or goal. For example, I go to work to make money, I make money to pay for food and movies. b) The ethical character of an action is then determined by the end or result of the action. An act is ethical in proportion to the degree in which it maximizes good ends. b) A good end can be identified as being self-sufficient and ultimate, i.e., it is not dependent on other factors and is the final justification for an act. c) The only ultimate and self-sufficient end for an action is happiness. It is ultimate because all other actions depend on it and self-sufficient because it justifies itself. Illustration: An individual goes to work. Why? To make money. Why? To buy things. Why? Because buying things like food allows the individual to live and buying things like movie tickets allows the individual to have fun. Why does the individual want to live? Because she prefers to live over dying. Why does the individual want to have fun? Because she prefers to have fun. Why does she prefer these things? There is no further justification available. Ultimately she simply has preferences and the desirability of her preferences are self justifying. d) Satisfaction of preferences makes up the basis of individual happiness. Conclusion: Ethical actions are those actions which maximize happiness. Sentient Relevance: In order to be happy, one must have preferences. In order to have preferences, one must have sentience. Comment: The variation of utilitarianism I have advocated is preference based, however other forms of utilitarianism such as rule, motive, or two-level. All of these forms have weighting mechanisms impacted by the sentience of living things, so the viability of any of the variations supports the resolution. B) Ethical Rationalism: Actions of ethical concern necessarily are performed by agents of action. Ethical demands then can be generated by examining the perspective of an individual agent: a) In order to be an agent, I must have the ability to act, and therefore I must have the freedom to act and I must have the ability to pursue ends (i.e. my well-being). Explanation: Without freedom I cannot act and therefore cannot be an agent. Without the ability to pursue ends I do not direct actions carried out by myself and am therefore not an agent but an instrument. b) Implicit in my purposeful actions is then a claim that I have a moral right to my freedom and well-being. c) Therefore, by acting as an agent I acknowledge my own right to freedom in well-being. d) If I claim such a right, then I must acknowledge that such a right exists for other agents of action. To do otherwise would be self-contradictory. e) Since I claim these rights by virtue of being an ethical agent, I must acknowledge that other ethical agents also have these rights. Conclusion: I must recognize the rights of ethical agents to freedom and the pursuit of well-being. Sentient Relevance: The recognition of rights in others is dependent on a symmetry of agency. If a living thing is not an agent, it has no rights. Sentience is a pre-requisite for agency and so is relevant to the ethical status of a living thing. Note: This argument does NOT claim that non-agents are devoid of ethical standing, only that the rights delineated above are contingent on agency, making sentience ethically relevant. C) Discourse Ethics a) Ethical actions are necessarily situated within a community of agents. b) Agents within a community necessarily engage in rational discourse- be it in the form of argumentation, science, or giving instructions. c) The use of rational discourse presupposes the freedom and autonomy of both interlocutors. In the absence of these two traits, rational discourse ceases to be a communicative act and becomes noise. d) It is therefore the case that engaging in discourse entails the acknowledgment of the freedom and autonomy of both interlocutors, to do otherwise is a performative contradiction. Conclusion: I must recognize the freedom and autonomy of other agents capable of communication. Sentient Relevance: The ability to engage in rational discourse is predicated on sentience. Rocks can’t talk. Comment: Arguments B) and C) bear structural similarity but are distinctly different. B locates ethical obligation in the nature of what it means to be an agent of action while C locates ethical obligation in the existence of community and discourse. D) Emotivism: a) Justification for ethical judgments cannot be founded in reason; no rational justification can be made for an ethical system. b) Nonetheless, ethical judgments exist universally in human society. Humans are motivated by ethical judgments and so some account of ethics is needed. c) Ethics are the result of moral sentiments such as indignation, sympathy, respect, etc. Since ethics cannot be founded in rationality, ethics must be founded in the non-rational aspects of human nature. d) Ethics are then located in the social and mental nature of humanity- it is determined simply by the way humans happen to be. This does not dissolve ethics but simply relocates ethics firmly into the realm of human nature. Conclusion: Ethical actions are those actions which conform to moral sentiment. Sentient Relevance: Killing a human is universally recognized by moral sentiment to be bad, while chopping down a tree is not. While there may be technical niceties surrounding this issue, moral sentiment clearly distinguishes between the treatment of human and plant life. Comment: The arguments of D clearly rests on the falsity of A, B, and C. The intent of this argument is to show that EVEN IF rationally grounded ethical frameworks such as A, B, and C fail, a non-rational account of ethics still affirms the resolution. The incompatibility of arguments is unproblematic for my case because my burden as Pro is to affirm the Resolution, not affirm any specific ethical framework.

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

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.

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

First, let me start out by saying "Cloning is a big first step. Genetic manipulation of cloned animals is the future direction of the cloning frontier. It is here that concerns are loudly voiced and take up headlines in the media. The public and the media’s views on the future of cloning often ignore some of its potential benefits: Changing genetic traits is the next step in cloning - it can lead to medical benefits for animals as well as humans." 1. • Agriculture and Drug Production:-Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.2. • Maintaining Biodiversity: - Cloning may be an important tool for preserving endangered species if currently practiced methods fail.3. • Biomedical Research: - Cloning can produce genetically identical laboratory animals which can be used as models for human disease. The most commonly used laboratory animal, the mouse, reproduces rapidly and its genetics have been well studied. Mice have been successfully cloned and will likely facilitate the discovery of new treatments for disease. Jean-Paul Renard, of the National Institute of Agricultural Research in France, is attempting to produce cloned transgenic rabbits to study cardiovascular disease in the hope of finding new treatments. In addition, it provides a model for studying the interaction of nuclear verses mitochondrial genes and for nuclear verses cytoplasmic factors. 4. • Commercial Endeavours:- Noting that no live dog clones have yet been reported, the company PerPETuate, Inc. (Connecticut) is freezing tissue from family pets for the future. Researchers have had little success in the steps required to make a dog clone, such as development after nuclear transfer and embryo implantation into the womb.5. • Treatment for Human Disease:-Cells could be harvested from early embryos to provide cell and tissue replacement without the hazards of transplantation rejection. The U.K. government has recently accepted recommendations from its chief medical to permit research using embryos subject to controls, which include a 14-day limit (see the Department of Health website listed below in “learn more”).*Clones will not be carbon copies of the donor since environmental factors will influence their personalities.*To clone or not to clone humans The cloning of human embryos for reproductive purposes is illegal at this time. Yet it is still important to examine the consequences and the likelihood of this scenario. The media may dream up and forecast robotic cloned armies of Hitler; however, identical twins illustrate that being genetically identical does not remove their humanness. Identical twins exhibit different personalities and behavior because environment also plays a major role on who we become. At any rate, there have been significant difficulties with cloning primates, including an extremely low success rate and a high number of abnormalities. These results make it unacceptable to attempt human cloning at this moment in time. The ethical and social issues that will arise in the future when more efficient methods are developed leave some time for a resolution. Some of the same issues that arose from in vitro fertilization will be revisited (e.g., infertile couples, “replacing” the death of an infant).Conclusion Cloning has opened many doors that could lead to remarkable medical advancements but, as with all new technologies, it will be accompanied by ethical and social dilemmas. Today’s successes will pave the road to improving efficiencies and help add to the basic understanding of our cells. Even Dolly’s creator, Ian Wilmut, is focusing less on sheep and more on understanding the mechanism of reprogramming our genetic material! http://www.manataka.org... http://www.actionbioscience.org...http://www.questia.com...http://library.thinkquest.org...http://www.sfgate.com...;

I would like to additionally offer to all interested that I would be glad to debate this topic with other people. Finally, I would like to encourage bbowhan to collaborate with others n the assembly of his arguments, as per rule 8 below. The topic of bestiality and zoophilia are questionable and oft sticky topics (pun intended), which generally produce a visceral reaction in the course of their discussion. Historically, sex with animals has been among the acts considered most obscene, an abomination above most -if not all- other things considered abominations. Despite this, there are in fact a great many things which human emotion arguably gets wrong about ethics: the human desire for revenge, forced heteronormativity, fear of change. In many people the list of emotional malfunction goes far deeper, into neuropathy, and psychopathy. Emotion is an approximation at best of "what is right", and as such, it becomes a valid question as to whether the visceral but none-the-less emotional animus against sex with animals is appropriate. As such, this debate is to explore whether such an animus is philosophically justified, or whether that animus is something that we ought overcome.1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing. Upon mutual agreement, round 5 may also include a final counter-rebuttal.2) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, CON agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting, rounds shall be offset by one post3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only. Round 2 "initial arguments" are to be independent.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted, if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".10) Additional rules as presented by CON shall be discussed in comments before being accepted.

In my opponent's Round 2 response, there was no discernable rebuttal to my arguments in Round 1. It even appears that my opponent actually took up my position, which I welcome.Again, I want to reiterate that I do share my opponent's passion about animal rights and do believe animals should be protected by modern laws. I also believe that animals that are involved in animal research and animal testing must be treated humanely when they're not enduring these kinds of potentially painful and gruesome tests; and I think the use of animals in experiments should be avoided where they can be. This is the subject of intense debate surrounding the biomedical research field and other fields where animals are tested, such as the cosmetics industry.Preclinical Trials (Animal Testing) Are an Inescapable First Step in the Development of a Safe DrugHowever, a lot of animal research and testing is unavoidable, especially whenever scientists have to examine whether a medicine or substance is safe for human testing. Animals are used in early trials of a new medicine or chemical (or cocktail of either) because scientists first have to evaluate likely effects before the substance is used in human trials. This is done not only to evaluate potential health risks with the new medicine or chemical--including risks of death--but also to get an understanding of how the substance(s) work inside the organism, to see which systems are affected and how. Understanding how these substances work inside the organism can likewise provide scientists with a critical understanding of how these substances are likely to work within a human. In other words, the efficacy and possible side-effects of the new drug are being determined as well (obviously). There's just too much risks in going straight to human trials, and we would see potentially thousands of human fatalities/casualties before these trials produced just one effective drug. The use of animals in biomedical research is an unavoidable first step if our aim as a nation is to prevent the loss of human life altogether. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has to first scrutinize an experimental drug tested on animals, and deem it "reasonably safe", before it can even approve it for clinical trials (human trials) [1][2]. In fact, the FDA reports on its website that "most drugs that undergo preclinical (animal) testing never even make it to human testing" or even to the review process, because of self-evident defects [1]. Could you imagine the harm caused to human subjects if animal testing was avoided altogether?Preclinical (animal) testing is so important to the drug development process and to the assessment of a drug's potential dangers and performance that most drugs aren't tested exclusively on a single animal type, but have to be tested on several [2]. This is "because one drug can affect one species differently from another" [2]. This is an important fact to know because "some animals serve as accurate representatives of a human's anatomy, while others share identical biochemical pathways" [3]. One animal might be a perfect representative of a particular human system or organ, while another more accurately reflects a human metabolic pathway. In most instances, the use of at least two or more species in preclinical trials can't be avoided, out of human safety concerns.That's not to say that researchers are at liberty to test on an endless supply of animals in these trials. They're not. The FDA explains that drug companies are required to test on as few animals as possible, and are still obligated to ensure their humane and proper treatment [2]. There are also federal laws within the United States that explain how research animals must be treated, and what the limitations of drug companies are with respect to these animals--something which I'll cover in a following Round.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals!It's true that most research with laboratory animals benefits humans. But some animal research has also benefited animals. Animals could not profit from this research unless testing on laboratory animals happened in the first place!According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has led to "life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species" [4]. Vaccinations for rabies, tetanus, feline leukemia, distemper, parvo virus and current treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and other animal illnesses would not be possible unless research was conducted on laboratory animals [4]. Because of this research, many familiar animals (and some wild) now have extended, healthier, happier lives. Such research has even yielded advanced treatments like joint replacement and pacemakers for animals [4].For a Following Round . . . Laboratory animals are also important in understanding potential bioterror threats posed by terrorists, and in researching possible vaccinations and treatments.[1] http://www.fda.gov...[2] http://www.fda.gov...[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[4] http://fbresearch.org...

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...

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

Good day my dear friend, I felt it so much for not replying you as I have forfeited round 2 because my internet was faulty but thank God I have fix it now. 1. Capturing animals is cruel, period. Animals have their own rights, and they have their own lives in the wild. Capturing them destroys their routines and their way of life. For example elephants travel long distances in the wild in large groups that is their way of life. When elephants are in a zoo, they can"t travel long distances, in fact, the amount they can move can barely be named as worthy of travel. 2. Moreover, animals that are confined to the zoo suffer from negative psychological effects due to the confinement. It doesn"t really matter how good the facilities of the zoo are, or how much space the animal has for itself, it will still not be comparable in any way to the freedom they would have in the wild. 3. Furthermore, animals that are born in zoos and confined to their boundaries their whole life never get to see their natural habitat, and never get to live life like they should be living it. This is something that can be noticed by their abnormal behavior, since they"re not where they should be " it is not natural for them. If these animals ever get released to the wild for any reason, they will have an extremely difficult time adapting to their natural habitat, because they had absolutely no former experience of it. They were taken care of all their lives, and now have to provide for themselves, something they are not used to. 4. Regarding education in zoos, although they do provide a lot of it, most of us go to the zoo as a way to spend time and for recreational purposes. No one really goes visit the zoo with the same mentality people visit the museum with. Moreover, some visitors actually don"t care about the well-being of animals, and many of them actually abuse them by throwing them objects, teasing them, yelling at them, and so on. This kind of behavior has an extremely negative effect on animals, and it can often result in psychological damage to animals, and sometimes it can even prove to be fatal. Animals caged in zoos aren"t able to exhibit their natural behavior as they should, and teasing them will greatly damage their self-confidence and their comfort in the zoo itself.