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

Animals should be utilized for medical research purposes. Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine, once stated that "Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year." Animal research has been a crucial component in nearly every medical breakthrough in the past decade. I am compelled to support today's resolution that animals should be used for medical research, as animal testing has contributed significantly to life-saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system.

Contention 1: Animal testing has contributed to numerous life-saving cures and treatments. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Imagine the potential for more medical breakthroughs with the aid of animal experimentation. An example of a life-saving treatment discovered through animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global number of polio cases from 350,000 in 1988 to 223 in 2012 (animal-testing.procon.org). Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees" and that the use of animal research is our "best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that claims 15,000 lives annually in the United States (animal-testing.procon.org). A 2011 poll by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.

Contention 2: Animals benefit from the results of animal testing. Without animal testing, millions of animals would have succumbed to diseases such as rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus (animal-testing.procon.org). Is it not reasonable to test on animals if it will save more animals? Without animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, ravaged by chlamydia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may prevent the animal's disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose species such as the Koala. Even the American Veterinary Medical Association supports animal testing.

Contention 3: Animals are suitable research subjects

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...

I would like to apologize if anything in my previous arguments came off as offensive. There is little that I would like to say at this point. I simply would like to pose the question as to what is the right thing to do? Should we let our animal friends die or help them out in times of trouble? Endangered species should be preserved.

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.

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.

A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain- I can't prove plants feel pain so I will go for another argument. Vegan diet is good but it has problems. One problem is an essential vitamin B-12. It is a nutrient that keeps blood cells and nerves in the body. It also help to create DNA in cells. Evidence have not shown to give this essential in a vegan diet. Yes you can use supplements but they do not work all the time and it will take time adjusting. Supplements do not have research stating that they do work. It has been tested but the results were not used to broad picture because of the different supplements you can get. Scientists cannot advice patients on the supplement they have when it might different from the store bought one. Even though many can state a vegan diet is healthier it still has not been proven in a controlled area. Another argument why we should not abandon meat even as a gradual change is the condition some people might in. The vegan diet can be excessive to the body even with a gradual change if you have pre existing conditions. 2 examples of these would be diabetes and osteoporosis. There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods. - Vitamin B-12 if I have not made it clear above and supplements are not always the best. it"s moral- I assumed wrong. Where in my original sentence would "unnecessary" be added? - In most cases the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. One case for the favour of animal interests is unnecessary harm done to said animal. They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER- I think the suffer aspect can be negated. Mine way of not making the animal suffer is tranquilising said animal and then snap its neck if it has one. The neck snap should be an instantaneous death. Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain? - It is morally wrong if you put someone on the spot about it. Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? - Profit, Taste and filling a gap in the market. Not a moral argument because the market is not meant to be moral. Just there to allow people to make money. Source:https://www. Aarp. Org/food/diet-nutrition/info-02-2011/9-pros-and-cons-to-going-vegan. Htmlhttp://www. Diabetesforecast. Org/2012/feb/the-pros-and-cons-of-dietary-supplements. Html

Well, I think I won you over?? You have gone away from your beloved seals and on to sea horses! See, I told you. There is just too much choice for mortal man to ignore. Diversity is interesting in all areas of life, even this! We can be psychopathic and unempathic an kill, maim and generally abuse all sorts of creatures for fun, experimentation, boredom, ignorance or perhaps just quality entertainment for the kids. However, I don't know about you but I think the day humanity starts to unify in feeling bad about these things is the tragic day all this fun stops, the humans will have been tamed! We need this to be us! Damn, dirty apes!

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

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

I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Anyways its clear to me that cattle used for meat and dairy consumpition should be banned all together. Cows should be viewed as companion animals like cats and dogs.

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


Question: Is it Ethical to Utilize Animals for Scientific or Commercial Experimentation?

Absolutely not.
Individuals who support animal testing clearly haven't considered the suffering of the animals involved. These creatures endure pain and often die as a result of such testing, which some heartless individuals endorse. Would any of you consent to being tested on? I didn't think so. Therefore, I suggest that supporters of animal testing reconsider their stance, as I have effectively demonstrated the flaws in their argument. To the person who penned the preceding comment, I would like to remind them that our world has been shaped by the domination of other species. The mistreatment of animals by humans is as ancient as time itself. Whether you approve of animal testing or not, it's important to recognize that simply being a part of society and not living in isolation as a subsistence hunter or farmer means you are contributing to animal suffering. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

"...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.

This debate will have a few topics related to it. Not only philosophy, but health and ecology too. I understand that some societies rely on hunting gathering to this day and they cant survive without meat. But why societies that can can survive without it continue doing all that to them? I believe that animals deserve equal amount of rights as we are. We have no right to adapt the supremacist view that they are above us. Here is a list of things we do to them, which they dont deserve: - Cows, Goats and Chickens. We use them and what they produce (milk and eggs) for food. - Foxes and cows. They are being skinned to make leather or fur. - Geese and ship. Are victims because of their feathers or fur. Geese have their feathers plucked out violently to make products like pillows and Ship have their fur removed for wool clothings. - Horses and some dogs. Being forced to participate in races. They go through terrible conditions before those races. - Killer whales, dolphins and some other fish. Forced to perform tricks (in places such as Sea World) or simply live in small confined places. - Lions, tigers, elephants, monkeys. They either live in a Zoo or perform tricks in circuses. - Dogs. They are used in the military and police to find drugs and participate in dangerous operations. When they are not active they sit in a small cage. Some dogs dont participate anything, they are just tied down to some place. - Wolves, Deer, bears, rabbits and some other animals. Are targets for hunters. - Rats, cats and monkeys. Often used for animal testing, mostly which isnt necessary. - Fish. Are victims to fishing, a lot of time done for sports. So what arguments are there to justify all what I listed?

animals are living beings who are able to feel pain, have emotions, and make decisions just as humans. If someone murders a person they can get a life sentence or even the death penalty. if someone kills an animal without reason their life was not in danger the worst they face is a couple years in jail. if someone decided to own a bunch of humans keep them in poor conditions and then slaughter them they would undoubtedly face serious criminal charges while it is legal to do the same thing to animals. on the other side of this animals who bite a human can be forced to be put to death. this is equivalent to giving someone the death penalty for punching someone. both the human and the animal can be considered dangerous to society however society allows the human to continue living among society. keep in mind that the animal may have even been provoked to do this either from an abusive past trigger or the human being violent with the animal. thinking that this is right is outright arrogant and sick in no way was that system created from a kind and rational being. If we gave animals the same legal rights as humans this animal injustice would be put to an end they would be protected from murder, abuse, and unfair treatment. It would also deter people from a tendency to take out their violence on animals as they could face the same charges as if it were a human. in the end who in their right mind would think that it's ok to treat animals cruely there is no reason that animals need to be killed or abused so why wouldn't you want to stop that from happening to them?

In ROUND 2 I mentioned that I share my opponent's concern for animal rights and good treatment while in the care of human owners and care-takers, including those that work in animal research laboratories. I also explained in an earlier ROUND that there are federal laws inside the US that protect animals (including research animals) from gratuitous harm and unnecessary absuse. I will cover both of these topics, including new and developing research alternatives to animal testing, in the following ROUND. Animals should not be unnecessarily harmed to advance medical research and understanding in humans, and wherever we can bring relief to animals in the process of animal testing, we have a humanitarian and ethical obligation to do so, especially since we're a civilization that adheres to the pivotal concept of rights, including the promotion of general tranquility and happiness. How we can avoid extending that concept to the animals we're in contact with regularly appears both intellectually dishonest and stubborn to me. Plus, I think it takes away from the philosophical grounding for human rights and standards of humans behavior. But more on that in the following ROUND.I this ROUND, I will continue to cover a benefit of animal research and then go over what kinds of animals are most regularly used in biomedical research animal testing. As we shall see, research on familiar pets and nonhuman primates makes up a very, very tiny amount of all testing performed on animals [1][2]. This ROUND will be short due to personal time constraints.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals--revisted issueSome animal research also benefits animals. I covered this concisely in ROUND 2. Now I'm going to go over more specific examples.In 1967, the very first pacemaker was implanted inside a dog [1]. This medical research and device was then used to treat human patients with abnormal heart rythyms, which saved tens of thousands of lives as a result. Today, hundreds of canines each year recieve pacemakers to keep their hearts beating normally and to prevent early death [1].Some of the first evidence that AIDS in humans was caused by a virus came from research on a type of leukemia that affects cats. An effective feline leukemia vaccine was developed in 1985 because of animal testing; it may offer clues to a cure for AIDS in humans [1].Every year, approximately 350 dogs receive artificial hips because of a prevalent diagnosed disease that damages and weakens their joints [1].Animal research has led to a common medical procedure performed on cats, dogs, and horses that alleviates cataracts, replaces the lens in their eyes and restores sight [1].The CAT scan was developed with the use of pigs. Today, this device is used by veterinarians to view animal organs without surgery [1].Animal research led to the successful development of the hearing aid. Veterinarians commonly treat deafness in aging animals now with the use of animal hearing aids [1].One out of 10 young horses is born prematurely. Today, special horse neonatal centers offer these young equines lifesaving drugs and respirators until they can get on their own four feet and function normally [1].The benefits of animal research to animals is quite extensive. Today, animals receive laser surgery, asthma and allergy treatments, chemotheraphy, bone grafts, skin grafts, epilepsy medicine, dental care, antibiotics, anesthesia, blood transfusions, and dozens of other types of treatments [1]. Even more, many new treatments used on animals are cutting edge and may in the future help human patients afflicted by related medical issues and diseases [1].None of these treatments and medical advacements would be possible without research on animals.The Vast Majority of Animal Researh is Conducted on Rats and MiceEven though biomedical research is conducted on many different types of animals in preclinical trials, the vast majortiy of it--approximately 95% of it inside the United States--is conducted on rats and mice [2][3]. There's actually several reasons as to why they're the animal of choice inside the research lab. Mice and rats are small, easy to house and maintain; mice and rats are inexpensive and can be purchased in large numbers; mice and rats reproduce quickly; they can be conveniently bred to be genetically identical, which is important in medical trials [3]. The most important reason of all however is that they closely resemble humans genetically, biologically, and even behaivorally; as a result, mice and rats have been used to development drugs and treatments for all sorts of human disorders and diseases over the course of the last century, which makes them a dependable research specimen [3]. They are physiologically and genetically well understood [3]. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," says Jenny Haliski, of the US National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Welfare [3].Most of the remaining research is performed on farm animals, rabbits, hamsters, guinea, fish and insects [2]. Less than one percent of the remaining animal research is on cats, dogs, and non-human primates combined.Rats and mice are brilliant animals, but they're nowhere near as intelligent as humans, according to the encephalization measurements that biologists use to estimate animal intelligence or cognition [4]. Not only are rats and mice far less intelligent than humans, according to encephalization measurements (a scientifically-credible way of determing intelligence in animals), but they're also less intelligent than dogs and cats, and about as intelligent as rabbits [4], which makes them better specimens to use from an ethical point-of-view. Rats and mice also have short life spans (2 to 3 years on average), which makes them better candidates to use than longer-lived cats, dogs, and nonhuman primates [5].[1] http://www.swaebr.org...[2] https://www.amprogress.org...[3] http://www.livescience.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://discovermagazine.com...

Con, your last argument is 100% wrong. If you are a vegetarian you must be an animal abuser. Did you not see the graph I posted in the comments? Animal cruelty as defined by wikipedia: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Wikipedia There is no kind way to make the statement I'm about to make. You sir or madam are an animal abuser. You have indirectly caused suffering and harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival. If you eaten eggs, milk, cheese, or any other animal product within your lifetime you have endorsed animal cruelty. Do you think those egg laying chickens and dairy cows simply appeared out of thin air? No, they were born. Born from parents who were mistreated and spent their entire life in captivity. What happens when the chicken or cow is spent? It is slaughtered. You don't need to eat eggs, milk, or cheese to survive. There are plenty of healthy vegans. As I see it anyone who eats eggs or milk has caused more animal cruelty than Cecil the lion's killer. What is the difference between a cow, chicken, and lion's suffering anyways? Can you honestly look at the humanemyth.org pages and tell me you haven't endorsed animal cruelty? The parents of the egg laying chickens and dairy cows. The field animals killed in harvesting the livestock's feed. I see it as hypocritical to be against animal cruelty when you openly admit you are a vegetarian and thus help cause animal cruelty. You might as well slaughter the egg laying hens yourself. On the other hand, I'm alright with animal cruelty. I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan. Yes, there is animal blood on my hands. Yet, you haven't answered the question. What makes animal cruelty wrong or unjust? I say might makes right. Humans got nuclear weapons and lots of other weapons. Also humans' ability to cooperate. " But in addition, we are intensely interested in what other people are doing and thinking, and this is something the cognitive psychologists have come out with pretty clearly in recent years, that people are superb, all of us geniuses, at reading the intentions of others in order to get cooperation, to develop dominance, bonding and so on. And that is what is called social intelligence." NPR.org http://freefromharm.org... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://humanemyth.org... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.npr.org...

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...

Ok So what my opponent does not understand is that my argument is in no way debating the fact that animals are treated well, I base my argument on the fact of the greater good. The fact that animals being kept in captivity are being treated horribly is not the case of the question posed, the big argument I pose to you is the fact that it is necessary Animals must be kept in captivity for necessary medical research, various studies conducted, and yes, even for the enjoyment of our children. If a Tiger in the wild attacks a baby elephant, rips it from its herd, kills it, and then eats on its inside, Is this a tragedy? That tiger doesn't need to kill that animal to survive, it is not it base instinct to kill that animal, it hunts the prey due to the natural order, in the same way that Humans, kill, hunt, capture and eat animals for the natural order. "First of all animals are used for medicine when kept in captivity but like I said people kill these captive animals for medicine killing animals and selling them and using their fur for medicine. If they want to use it for medicine why don't they use some kind of machine they could invent to help make medicine out of animals without killing them and plants could be used as medicine for healing so that's no excuse to say that they need to keep animals captive to kill and produce medicine" On this idea, do we have such a machine? can you show me some way in which we can create vaccines without killing the animals? The time to fight the diseases is only in the present. should we wait for 20 years for these machines to be thought up, created, tested when we have a vaccine ready to use, right here right now. This is natural, the death of animals to further the research of man "To clear all of that away animals should be not kept in captivity because it keeps them away from there true home. Humans should not kill so many innocent animals for money or others. Animals do not like it when they are captive and abused." Animals do not like it? where is that source from? where is the proof in that? did you ask them yourself? It is all necessary to kill animals, even for money, humans are the top of the pecking order and we have a right to kill. These sanctuaries are doing a really good job of taking care of animals and keeping them in the wild where there true home is not being imprisoned. With these sanctuaries animals are able to roam around whenever they please and sanctuaries breed, feed and take care of animals unlike zoos which how they just kill,trade,train them to entertain public, and prison animals. In this decision I would rather live in a sanctuaries then a zoo. living in a sanctuary is still living in captivity, you can not argue against captivity and then give an alternative to it with captivity, I do however understand your point that maybe not all zoo's and other place like this are treating the animals fairly, maybe some are being abused, however this is not the fault of captivity, this is the fault of man. Basically my point is you should be arguing for Animals should not be kept in captivity, You are arguing that they should be treated better in captivity. Also who is to say that observing the animals in a captive environment is a bad thing, perhaps seeing these animals in zoos, is the only way some people might get to see these animals, should we deny access to such beautiful creatures to those who can not possibly see these animals in the wild due to disability or inability to travel? Millions of people visit the thousands of zoos around the world, proving that we simply never grow tired of observing wildlife. Finished

First I will start with quoting what my opponent said in the start of the last round, "Let me clarify my position a little. Personally, I don't think eating animal flesh is wrong in itself. I think if a person doesn't cause an animal pain before slaughter, kills it swiftly, and this action doesn't hurt any other person, there is nothing unethical about the consumption of the meat. You can get meat this way today it costs more money but you can. Since you said there is nothing wrong ethically with eating meat, there really is no argument. Something can't be more ethical then something else if it is completely ethical. Here is some proof of humane meat out there this is one of many, "Wouldn't it be great if farm animals were raised compassionately? Well, some people are way ahead of you on that. Whole Foods Markets has decided to come up with standards to create a line of meats bearing an "animal compassionate" label, meaning farmers raised the animals humanely. It's not the first animal-welfare label out there. There's also the "certified humane" label administered by Humane Farm Animal Care, and the "free farmed" label overseen by the American Humane Association. And the Animal Welfare Institute issues the label "Animal Welfare Approved." All aim for humane lives for farm animals, though each program is different. Examples: The New York Times pointed out that the Animal Welfare Institute and the "free farmed" label let pigs have nose rings to prevent them from tearing up the ground when they root around, but the other programs forbid rings. At AnimalWelfareApproved.org, the Animal Welfare Institute posts a comparison chart showing how it"s the most favorable program. The nonprofit watchdog group Consumers Union so far has examined only the "certified humane" label, which it deemed a "highly meaningful label that indicates that meat, dairy and egg products came from animals that were treated humanely," according to its eco-oriented web site, Eco-labels.org. The "certified humane" label has several requirements. Among examples: Livestock must have access to clean and sufficient food and water; they must have sufficient room to move naturally; and their environment must not endanger their health. In the end, the vast majority of livestock don't fall under any of these humane-labeling programs, and you may achieve your goal of buying humanely raised meats via other routes -- by buying from farmers markets or small local farms. Another way: Quiz local co-ops about what they know about how their meats were produced. For more info: To find out where to buy "Certified Humane" foods, go to CertifiedHumane.com. To find Animal Welfare-approved foods, go to www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org. To find "Free Farmed" producers, go to AmericanHumane.org."(1) So I really have nothing else to say as long as you get humanly raised meat like up above me and my opponent both agree eating meat is completely ethical and since eating a vegetarian diet is completely ethical, they are both equally ethical and that's the debate. So basically whenever you eat meat make sure you get humanly raised and slaughtered meat and then you will be eating just as ethically as a vegetarian in both mine and my opponents eyes. Good luck with your closing statement in the last round remember no rebuttals or new arguments, like we agreed. Lets end this.

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


Question: Is it Ethical to Utilize Animals for Scientific and Commercial Testing?

It propels human evolution and progress.
Indeed, it might rescue human lives, but how significant are we truly in the context of the animal kingdom? In essence, we are animals ourselves and must acknowledge and respect this fact. We have the option to test new medications on volunteers, as if they desire a drug for their own benefit, they should be the ones to step forward, not an innocent animal who has no say in the matter. It's akin to a dog testing a new treat on you; how would you feel about that? Humans do not hold supremacy over all other species. Although we may have made advancements and gained more understanding of the world, this does not elevate our importance above others.

To conclude this debate, I would like to state that although animal testing has helped us immensely in the past, just like everything else in life, things have to improve. In the past, we used horse and carts as one of our primary methods of transportation. Nowadays, we have the car. We don't need animal tests anymore and it has come to a time to improve. Thank you for reading. Vote Pro. Sources used throughout debate: http://www.peta.org... https://helix.northwestern.edu... http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://mpkb.org... http://wyss.harvard.edu...

I believe animals should have rights. First reason is that we are them, all animals. We have very close DNA's; for example cats actually share 90% of their DNA with us. Second reason is they have their own rights to live because they have their own lives, emotion, pain, even friends and family! Some elephants have been known to have depression disorders! If we destroy their habitat, hunt for their skins and use them as lab testing materials, we kill them, them losing the point of their lives and family. It's practically the same as cannibalism. Some are counted "wild" and even that is sometimes wrong. For example a tiger kills so much animals to fill it's food needs and if it were small, it would never ever attack humans. Every animal is like a human. If you ever had a pet that matched you well, you'd see how attached they'd become to you. I just look at my cat's face and I just go crazy with love. He is also very smart, understanding "go wake up Neda" by just hearing it. We never taught him, but he knew.

I accept but I must clarify a few things. I am not a proponent of harming ANY animal without a meritable, socially acceptable reason. As such, I will not be advocating those practices in anyway. I will, however, show that consuming, hunting and testing animals for ones own benefit can be perfectly moral, well in line with the laws of nature, and has nothing to do with my wanting or not wanting to be eaten by another animal. Legally, an animal's life is not as important as a humans. Morally, some people may agree with the simplicity of that statement, however very few people would actually practice a lifestyle that did not contradict that belief. If an animal's life is equal to human then you have a moral obligation to insure you never assert your importance over their own. Did you check to make sure the state/city/neighborhood you live in did not displace/kill thousands of animals while being created? If not, then you clearly don't live by a standard of equality with any animal other than your own species. Eating animals to survive is both natural and benifical to you and the environment, without this process being repeated throughout nature, the circle of life would not exist. Being human, and understanding that it may be unpleasant to the party being consumed, does not remove us from the circle. If humans did not hunt and kill a pantheon of the animals that we share this world with we would be overrun by them and our way of life would be next to impossible. If they have to be hunted, why should they go to waste instead of being eaten or even used for some sort of testing?

There are right or wrong answers when it comes to ethics. it is not ethically ok to kill a child, no matter what the reason. In other countries they have different ethical standards that may say that one persons life is more important than someone else's life. That is not the case. Just because you are from a different place doesnt make it ok. Abusing animals is not ethically okay and should not be done anywhere. Many cultures believe in sacrificing animals for different ceremonies and that is also not ok. and should not be done. Once again, an animals life is not worth any less than a humans. Ethical standards should not be created based on your religion or based on the country you live in. There is one set of ethical standards that should be applied all over the world throughout every religion. These ethical standards should be the same across the board.

no further arguments..... thank you opponent for your participation. I still believe there should be a better alternative to animal testing and hope we solve soon into the future.... thank you! Thank you, best regards!

OK, great argument. However, as the opponent has mentioned that ' Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented?', and also asked about the other ways we can test our new medicines, I would like to mention an alternative that would not harm neither human nor animals. First, the Episkin. The Episkin, a manmade skin developed in a science lab, is 99% same as a real human skin, while scientists can also control the dryness of this material, either. The reaction to new substances are not so quick as animals, but it is still highly potential if we think about the invaluable lives of animals. Second, the online experiment using computer programs. We are living in a developed, 'digital information era', which we can use this small and intelligent friend called 'computers'! Why we aren't using this program in the testing process? Just for the quick results and less prices. It is time for us to use 'advanced' computing programs and high-tech materials while testing instead of this inhumane animal-testing act.

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

Zareth, I gave you several arguments you responded to not at all. The only one you somewhat responded to in your R2 I expanded upon in my R2. Look at my R1 and you'll see my whole argument is not dependent on this point. However, Since you have now answered, If 1 human life is superior to 2+ deer lives and some research that will benefit all deer and humans in the future requires testing on live subjects, Then I condone it. It is not at all obvious that your answer would have been that you would not sacrifice a human life for 2 deer lives. Many people who are anti animal experimentation would say that every life is equal and that two deer would be the clear choice over one human. In the case where people think all lives are equal, It is consistent to say live animal experimentation should be stopped. The only question is replace it with what? You will contribute to human suffering. In the end, If you cannot get a global ban put in place your ban in your country will be nothing but a symbol. It will effect no real change. I examine my thoughts in all of the debates I do. I am my worst critic. Here, I can't help but think you are the one who needs to analyze their thoughts better. I suppose I will submit my efforts to the judges to decide. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

First off, we can still respect animals while testing on them, second of all, most of our respect for animals come from animals saving our lives. if we didn't start testing on animals, a lot more will die and less people will have less respect for animals.

Okay, so it's is not scientifically proven. If we stop hunting these animals, will we ever be able to prove if the method may work? There goes an idea of potentially saving some one else's live because now we can't get the resources. If we do stop hunting, we will eventually face the consequences of overpopulation. Some of the animals being hunted are chickens, cows, turkeys and more. The same exact animals that are being caged on farms, killed, and sold in the store to buy. So either way, theses animals are still facing death. According to the International Association Of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, There wouldn"t be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. This means that outdoorsman are doing most of the funding so we can enjoy other activities. According to a special positions paper, $746 million " Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen"s licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies ** $300 million " Additional money contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ** $4.2 billion " Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money. Here"s what all this translates into" The needs of wild animals " especially endangered and threatened species " are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters" dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today. Call me a psychopath if you want. Hunting Is a sport. Learn more here https://www.wildlife.ca.gov... http://www.ncwildlife.org...