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

The use of animals and humans in drug testing is often viewed as inhumane or inappropriate. Many individuals disapprove of drug testing due to concerns about the potential harm it could inflict on the test subjects. Yet, drug testing is the cornerstone of many medical breakthroughs and treatments we have today. A significant portion of our current cures are a direct result of drug testing. Essentially, the knowledge we have gained in science is rooted in drug testing. Those who participate in testing do so with the intention of contributing to future advancements in curing diseases that are currently untreatable.

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

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

Animals aren't humans, and they don't deserve the same treatment. Of course they shouldn't! That's just silly! It's clear we shouldn't abuse them but really! Dogs can't go to human schools to learn, and there's a reason for that; there's no way they can grab a pencil and get writing. Cats shouldn't be able to live alone in a house. Why not, you ask? Probably because they can't pay taxes, and they don't understand basic economics. Lions shouldn't go to a lion show. If you're confused, I'll elaborate: Lions shouldn't take part in the audience of a lion show. This is for many reasons. 1. They're predatory, and will probably beat the living crap out of the rest of the audience. 2. They're big, and they might break the risers (like, over 1000 lbs. I'm not going to be discriminating against obese people) 3. They're endangered, and should be protected from human onslaughts 4. They've probably trained to act in the show, not participate as a viewer. Really, if we make a law that animals deserve the same treatment as human beings, then that'll doom our children to encountering a bigger school bully than they've ever seen before: the Grizzly Bear.

Thank you so much, Pro. This has been an enjoyable debate!Let us evaluate this debate. Did Pro establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be tested? Did Con show otherwise?Pro's arguments were built on an absolutist position in which animals are considered very nearly human, and his standards for inhumane, needless, pointless, animal rights were essentially equivalent to human standards. He gave no justification for this. Pro claimed criminal activities of labs, but did not produce evidence to substantiate. In his final argument he advanced animal testing as pointless, however, Con established many ways in which animal testing has proved beneficial and abolition of it harmful. Additionally, Pro briefly argued for Con while advocating micro-dosing. Furthermore, he cited no specific articles. A repository of articles covering many various topics - some of which might argue against Pro, does not substantiation make. On the other hand, Con provided justification for human rights not being extended to animals. Pro's rebuttal (they are completely at our mercy) would essentially give rights to all forms of life (and maybe even inanimate objects!). Rights become meaningless and what is known to be special and rare (rationality) is valued equally with that which is much more common. Con argued animal testing is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Pro tossed out a red herring by arguing insulin and ovarian function were falsely attributed to animal testing. Con's utilitarian view stands unchallenged. In round 1, Con explained inviability, lack of technology (microfluidic chips), limited use, and non systemic in general prevented other tests from truly being a replacement for animal testing. Pro suggests this has been addressed, but it has not.I hope the readers will find this summary useful. That being said, I thank PinkSheep123 for instigating this debate, and I hope we might meet again. Until then, adieu.

Con’s definition of animal is ridiculous and unsourced. Animal cannot be reasonably defined as non-human as humans are classified as animals. (1) This is a truism as Homo-sapiens are a member of the animal kingdom. C1: Con concedes P1 and P2 of my C1. Thus he is contending P3 and the conclusion. Con Claims that there are significant differences between humans and other animals. First he claims that because animals are a source of food they are different. In the history of the world, humans have eaten other humans as food, as well as some other animals have eaten humans as food. Thus this first difference is not really a difference. Likewise as entertainment and respect. Do Humans not find amusement from other humans and show some respect to animals? Of course they do. All differences are negated. Even if they were not, my contention was not that there is no difference between humans and other animals. Rather that there are no relevant differences that would impact rights. So even if you were to grant these differences, con has failed to link the differences in a way that would impact rights. Con’s conclusion concedes a main point in this debate. “Animals have some rights.” C2: Like C1 my opponent does not contend my first two premises Con contents that not all suffering is needless. This has zero impact on this debate as I never argued that all suffering is needless. I did argue that Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. Con concludes that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. “ This again concedes a main point in this debate. Con claims that it may be likely that “animals do not actually feel pain the way we do.” He continues to say “It may recognize that its body is under the stress of pain, but it may not consciously feel it the way we do.” This is a weak argument of what they might “possibly feel.” Especially as modern science has all but concluded that many animals do feel pain. (Please see source from opening argument.) C3: As a definition has not been provided for Just, I will provide one here. BSH1 states that “Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due.”(2) To apply this to this debate we see that “Needless suffering is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor due--it is, by its very nature, needless.” (2) Con argues argues that “to take accountability of all living things is not an obligation for humans.” I have not argued that it is. What I have argued is that humans ought to respect an animals right to not needlessly suffer. This means not being the perpetrator of such suffering. Thus as con has conceded that “Animals have some rights” and that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer,“ he has essentially conceded that animal rights do exist. Since they do exists it follows that a just society ought to recognize Animal rights. (1) http://www.britannica.com... (2) http://www.debate.org...

This brings us to our final conclusion. I defend my orginal arguments by saying...Thank's to everyone who view the debate. We hope that we'll get your votes.Cloning Animals is beneficial because...1) Agriculture and Drug Production: (make food and drugs to cure people)2) Maintaining Biodiversity: (make more of the animal so others will be left behind if some die.)3) Biomedical Research: (uses for research to find cure to some diseases)4) Commercial Endeavours: (food security is a serious issue and this can help with food security)5) Treatment for Human Disease: (if possible, treatment could be find for human diseases.)Now i apolozie, i might have went off a little bit off topic by saying "To clone or not to clone humans" and "“Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. " they are off topic. i'm sorry."My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet." you cannot prove any evidence as you have not or been able to eat it yet. You disagree because its your opinion but clearly research shows it safe.

Thank you for your good but somewhat 'short' point. In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are "just animals" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be "improving the lives of humans" like you so emphasised in your point. Now back to my perspective. Animals are not "just animals" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also "improve the lives of humans". Thank you and I beg you to oppose.

Excuse me, but are you freaking KIDDING ME? Animals enjoy circuses because of treats and AFFECTION? We LEGALLY must treat them nicely, give them affection and company? Animals used in circus are treated brutally! They are kept hungry and cruel treatment is meted out to them! Why do you think they band so many circuses around the world? People who work in circuses are mostly poor and homeless, living in poor hygienic conditions, traveling all over the world (which is another problem-long animal transports, which is CEIRTANLY TORTURE!) and Circus is their home! So don't you 'THEY LEGALLY MUST TREAT THEM NICELY' me. Do you even know how the loud noises and crowds of people scare them poor things? And why? Just because we were given the DOMINATION OVER ALL OTHER CREATURES, we can disrespect them in that way and torture them, what, in the name of your IMAGINARY GOD? 'They seem to be happy.' Oh, do they now? http://www.dzzz.si... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.idausa.org... http://pictures-of-cats.org... http://www.ahan.org... http://www.animal-rights-action.com... http://www.veganpeace.com... Do they seem happy to you? Do they? And HOW can you EVEN say 'We LEGALLY must let them live in a simulated habitat.' Please, tell me, HOW? Does this look like a simulated habitat to you? http://www.baltimoresun.com... http://www.dzzz.si... http://media4.s-nbcnews.com... http://animalwelfaretaiwan.webs.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.veganpeace.com... http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.theorganicview.com... Here are some quick facts about animals in circuses: 1) Animals in circuses spend about 11 months of the year traveling 2) During travel, animals may be caged or chained for long distances and hours, forced to stand in their own waste, in extreme temperatures. 3)In the wild, elephants live in large, sociable herds and walk up to 25 miles every day. Most other wild animals found in circus settings, including lions and tigers, are also constantly on the move in their native habitats. In the circus, animals spend most of their time in cages or chains. 6)Circus animals spend an average of 26 hours in cages, during transport. !!! VIRTUALLY 96 % OF A CIRCUS ANIMALS' LIFE IS SPENT IN CHAINS OR CAGES !!! You might as well check out ANY, I mean ANY video on YouTube, and find out you're wrong yourself. http://www.youtube.com... 9:03 minute is really lovable,, darling. Enjoy other videos too. You can find loads on youtube. I'm really glad Circus with animals is mostly banned in Europe. And it is banned for a reason! ~ ~ ~ Sources: PETA, YouTube and my heart.

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

con criticizes testing when it's done only for curiosity. we should be arguing about doing it when it's just then, not saying ban it all. con says it's a waste of time cause not all tests work on both mice and humans. so, that only means the tests dont always work. it dosn't mean they don't do some good, and give us guidance. so we should continue for teh benefit that it does give us. con gave a bunch of practical point, less about ideology or core values. but, his practical points turned out to be flawed reasons to stop animal testing.


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

The debate over animal testing.
Given the lack of a clear definition of the resolution from my opponent, I will provide some clarification: my opponent must demonstrate that it is ethically justifiable to conduct potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals, specifically mammals (since when we talk about animal testing, we are typically referring to mammal testing). Conversely, I must argue that it is not ethically justifiable.

Contention 1: Animals possess consciousness. Conscious entities have a right to life; animals are conscious beings, and thus should not be subjected to experimentation.

Contention 2: Animals have the capacity to suffer. All mammals can experience pain, possess emotions, and are capable of suffering. It is cruel to perform hazardous and potentially damaging experiments on beings that can suffer.

References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners. You also haven't answered my question.I said How would you feel if you helped people all your life and then got killed and eaten? you haven't answered that. Yes some dogs don't do that much but most dogs protect us humans.Why should we eat them? Give me one good reason why we should eat them? When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty. How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.

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

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

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

I understand that other people have different opinions, and I am only suggesting my own. Maybe you should take a look at this: -PETA claims that they killed 90 percent of the animals that were dropped off at the Virginia Shelter. -60 percent of the people that kills animals is for fun and to make them feel powerful. -Scientists says that if we all keep doing what we're right now, we're going to run out in the future, more animals would get extincted. Those things don't need to happen. As I said earlier, the animals don't need to suffer, they are just as important as humans are.

Good day ladies and gentle,I am debating on the topic "All Animals should be given the right to enjoy there natural habitat" and I am for the motion. However, before I go further I would like to give the meaning of important words on this topic,and I will like to start with the meaning of 'Animals". Animals are a living organism which feeds on organic matter,typically having specialized sense organ and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. In actual fact animals are creatures

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.

Just to let you know, I am all for animal rights, but, I will debate against it for the sake of the argument.

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...

Although the resolution is unclear, I am taking it as my opponent is affirming that all Animals deserve rights. == DEFINITIONS == Scientifically, an animal which comes under the Kingdom "Animalia" is an animal (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am assuming my opponent is excluding Humans from the list of animals. == CON == === PARASITES === Cestoda, commonly known as tapeworms, are parasites. They are also animals. They are flatworms, and they are also parasitic and cause great harms to humans. "Cestodes (tapeworms) and digeneans (flukes) cause important diseases in humans and their livestock, and monogeneans can cause serious losses of stocks in fish farms. Schistosomiasis, also known as bilharzia or snail fever, is the second most devastating parasitic disease in tropical countries, behind malaria. The Carter Center estimates that 200 million people in 74 countries are infected with the disease, and half the victims live in Africa. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Clearly parasitical animals cause a great deal of human loss. Therefore it is justifiable to kill these animals before they harm humans, as it is their nature to be parasitical, and cause the aforementioned destructive harm. === ANIMALS CAN'T HAVE RIGHTS === Rights exist to order. They exist as long as the creatures involve can respect it, and recognise it as a boundary, and are rationally motivated to take action should that person go against there rights. Since animals can't recognise these rights, and aren't rationally motivated, they can't have rights. I await my opponents response.


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

The use of animals in testing
Would anyone want their beloved pets subjected to testing? If not, why should it be acceptable for other animals? The ethical considerations surrounding animal testing are complex, and it's important to question the morality of using animals for scientific or commercial purposes. After all, if we wouldn't want our own pets to be tested on, why should we subject other animals to the same fate? It's a question that demands careful consideration and a thoughtful response.

Hi ladies and gentlemanWelcome to the last round of this debate,Before I start my case I would like to present few flaws with opponents small case.My opponent has mentioned in all his contentions that :- "A just society that recognized the rights and values of its members is required to recognize animal rights" but my opponents have clearly forgotten that many people in greed and money forget and break the animal welfare law. The illegal animal abuse is seen over my diary farms and forests around the world. Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whalesMany diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly. Just to name a few examplehttp://foodfreedom.wordpress.com...;Now on to my caseAfter four rounds , My opponents case has boiled to two main issues- Animals should have rights because-- one accept there are certain things that humans ought not do to animals-- and if we accept the first argument then rights of animals should be recognized by just a just societyWhilst my case as boiled down to 5 points -Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights -"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humans-It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. - Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life- Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. In conclusion it is in the best of all creature that non animals should not be given rights as disadvantages clear outrule the advantagesThank you for reading

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

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

This is the Animal Rights debate. I will debate for the proposition. The rules are as follows: 1. In Round 1, I have thus revealed the rules. Con can begin the debate with the first argument and MUST FORFEIT ROUND 5. 2. In this debate, ANIMAL WELFARE being opposed to ANIMAL RIGHTS is STRICTLY DISALLOWED. The argument by Con must be against BOTH ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS. 3. All arguments should be pertaining to the definitions GIVEN BELOW, and definitions from other dictionaries, or any other definitions will NOT BE ACCEPTED unless the word has not been defined below. 4. Arguments involving euthanasia or related concepts are NOT PERMITTED, and any such presented arguments will result in my immediate 7-point victory. 5. Violation of the rules also results in my immediate 7-point victory. For voters: The debate will be on the simple decision of "WINNER" or "LOSER". The definitions are given below. 1. "Animal" is hereby defined as a sentient multicellular eukaryotic organism of the kingdom Animalia, with the ability to process pain and/or emotions. Sponges and simple polyps and medusans, for example, are excluded from this defining category; according to this definition, only fairly complex non-human species of the kingdom Animalia with a proper nervous system and the ability of a level of motion. Primarily, this debate deals with: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, gastropods, arthropods, echinoderms and annelids. Cnidarians and sponges (sponges, jellyfish, polyps, coral etc.) are not applicable in this debate, because of lack of complex nervous systems. 2. "Animal rights" is the idea that non-human animals (according to the above definition) are entitled to the POSSESSION of their own lives. 3. "Possession of their own lives" refers to the fact that animals must not be exploited for human purposes, and must not be manipulated thus; UNLESS: The purpose is for the betterment of the animal itself or another animal.

Con’s definition of animal is ridiculous and unsourced. Animal cannot be reasonably defined as non-human as humans are classified as animals. (1) This is a truism as Homo-sapiens are a member of the animal kingdom. C1: Con concedes P1 and P2 of my C1. Thus he is contending P3 and the conclusion. Con Claims that there are significant differences between humans and other animals. First he claims that because animals are a source of food they are different. In the history of the world, humans have eaten other humans as food, as well as some other animals have eaten humans as food. Thus this first difference is not really a difference. Likewise as entertainment and respect. Do Humans not find amusement from other humans and show some respect to animals? Of course they do. All differences are negated. Even if they were not, my contention was not that there is no difference between humans and other animals. Rather that there are no relevant differences that would impact rights. So even if you were to grant these differences, con has failed to link the differences in a way that would impact rights. Con’s conclusion concedes a main point in this debate. “Animals have some rights.” C2: Like C1 my opponent does not contend my first two premises Con contents that not all suffering is needless. This has zero impact on this debate as I never argued that all suffering is needless. I did argue that Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. Con concludes that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. “ This again concedes a main point in this debate. Con claims that it may be likely that “animals do not actually feel pain the way we do.” He continues to say “It may recognize that its body is under the stress of pain, but it may not consciously feel it the way we do.” This is a weak argument of what they might “possibly feel.” Especially as modern science has all but concluded that many animals do feel pain. (Please see source from opening argument.) C3: As a definition has not been provided for Just, I will provide one here. BSH1 states that “Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due.”(2) To apply this to this debate we see that “Needless suffering is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor due--it is, by its very nature, needless.” (2) Con argues argues that “to take accountability of all living things is not an obligation for humans.” I have not argued that it is. What I have argued is that humans ought to respect an animals right to not needlessly suffer. This means not being the perpetrator of such suffering. Thus as con has conceded that “Animals have some rights” and that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer,“ he has essentially conceded that animal rights do exist. Since they do exists it follows that a just society ought to recognize Animal rights. (1) http://www.britannica.com... (2) http://www.debate.org...

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. a. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.b. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA. c. Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" 2. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. a. Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats." [ b. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while thein vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research.

"...humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind." -So you are saying that in this scenario the morally correct thing to do would be to sacrifice the human life? What are your moral standards, exactly? Do you think that death will cause pain to a fish and its family that is even remotely close to the impact of the death of the average person? Even supposing that a fish would go through the same experiences of pain and grievance, which is impossible to prove at best, humans are much more social and productive creatures. Think about it this way: can you name one other animal that cares AT ALL for the well-being of another species or the environment, except for humans? (and of course, when an animal like a dog is dependent on and/or trained to help their owners) "It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another." -Of course toxicology testing that assumes that all drugs safe for animals are safe for humans is dangerous. But incidents such as the Thalidomide tragedy would not have been PREVENTED by not testing the drugs on animals. All these examples you site don't show how animal testing is necessarily harmful, it just shows why we may need better methods of testing drugs that pass safety tests in animals. I cannot site specific examples, but I am sure that many, many substances have been shown to be toxic in animals and have therefore been prevented from mass distribution. Animal testing can give two results: one, the substance is shown to be safe in which case it may or may not be safe in humans; and two, the substance is shown to be harmful. The point of animal testing is mainly to separate out the latter, so we can investigate why they were harmful and prevent the substance from reaching the public if it is determined that the harmful effects would also develop in humans. Animal testing, like any other kind of testing, even human, does not give a definite answer as to the actual effects of the product in use. For example, a certain drug may only prove to be toxic in people who smoke, or drink, or some other condition, because no two people are exactly the same. That is why we use animal research not to predict EXACTLY what will go on when the substance is administered to the actual consumers, but to investigate effects that may show up. Life, even disregarding the minute differences between species, is such a complex thing on the whole that even the most advanced computers and lab work cannot tell us how the individual molecules of a drug will affect the individual molecules of our cells.

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

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

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