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

The exploitation of animals for scientific and commercial testing should be halted. Do animals possess rights akin to humans? According to some animal rights advocates, animals should have intrinsic legal and moral rights, similar to those of humans. From this perspective, it is morally wrong to utilize animals for any reason, be it for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or food. The use of animals in testing is a highly controversial issue. Some believe that animals should have the same rights as humans and should not be used as test subjects for research under any circumstances. Conversely, members of the medical and scientific communities argue that not using animals in research is unethical, as animal experiments can lead to medical breakthroughs that enhance the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health cannot advance without animal experimentation. There are two opposing viewpoints on this issue. Animals are subjected to numerous experiments worldwide that cause them pain and suffering. Animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans since it began over a century ago. The Animal Welfare Act was enacted in 1966, marking the beginning of the animal rights movement. Over time, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and destructive in their efforts to raise awareness about animal rights. The methods used by animal activists to convey their message to the public vary widely. Some organize letter-writing campaigns, while others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One such group is PETA, founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization works on a variety of issues, including biochemical and cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse of animals in pet stores, hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur and non-leather footwear. PETA is not known for violence; instead, it often stages public stunts. For instance, three members dressed in rabbit costumes and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, to protest the company's use of animals in product testing. This stunt was embarrassing for the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is not the only one. There are dozens of "rights" groups with a more radical agenda. One such group is the ALF (Animal Liberation Front), which emerged in the United States in the late 1970s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging over 100 labs and farms across the country. In the realm of animal testing, there are various types

<> I accept your definition of "animal". < question: Could you kill an animal to eat? >> Yes I can. I have done it many times as I hunt duck, deer, quail, dove, pheasant, hog, and geese. I also fish quite often, both freshwater and saltwater. < (www. youtube. com/watch? v=bJfXami4haU)>> That video, unfortunately, is true and it's terrible. However, not all food is grown in conditions like that, as they follow the rules and regulations for raising livestock. Seen at the following link: (. http://www.bffairrodeo.com...) 10. All exhibitors shall furnish necessary feed, grain, troughs, and water buckets for their animals & arrange for their care. Bedding will be furnished by the fair. 11. Entries limited to space available. 12. For livestock limits, see individual departments. 13. Exhibitors must keep their animals, barn area and grooming area clean or premium monies will be forfeited. 17. Exhibitors found to be using abusive practices and/or drugs on animals will be banned permanently from the fair. The fair will notify all fairs in Washington State of its decision. 5. Fair veterinarians will inspect all classes of livestock and poultry before they are exhibited to determine that the livestock and poultry show no clinical indications of contagious infectious disease and ectoparasites. 6. Fair veterinarians will reject any animal with infectious or contagious disease or ectoparasites. Exhibitors should be made aware that ringworm, warts, pink-eye, strangles, contagious ecthyma, scabies, lice, mites, ticks, and fleas fall into these categories. As you can see, what you saw in those videos was not always legal. Which means that we already are trying to stop atrocities such as that. If everyone followed the law, then those animals wouldn't be in those situations. Farmers and ranchers are required to keep their livestock in good health, well fed, and in sanitary conditions so to say that the majority are (as you seem to be inferring) being maltreated is not true. To save characters I will simply answer my opponent's points on her numbers, not quote them. >The Environment 1. However, the US also has to import agricultural crops as they do not make enough locally. So it takes about 127 calories of aviation fuel to bring 1 calorie of lettuce from the UK to here, 97 calories of aviation fuel to take 1 calorie of asparagus from Chile, and 66 calories of aviation fuel are consumed for every 1 calorie of carrot from South Africa. (. http://www.energybulletin.net...). Also, plants take up carbon dioxide in the air and reduce greenhouse gases. This means that as a vegetarian, you are destroying what is fixing our planet, while if you eat more animals you will be trimming down the root of the greenhouse gases. 2. Give me a non-biased link for this please. 3. Some of these grains, corn, and beans are grown specifically for livestock purposes. If there was no more livestock, a significant portion of farmers who use to sell food to the livestock would have a hole in their pockets. Efficiency is not an issue here, as humans are the number one priority for making food. This means that if the food amount started to get low then (assuming your statistics are true) livestock would become less profitable and crops would start to be grown instead. 4. If everyone was a vegetarian then more land would have to be cleared for crops. Crops aren't as good as holding soil as the previous vegetation of grasses, shrubs, and trees. The crops will also suck up the nutrients faster and over a couple years the productivity of the land would severely decrease. The farmers would then move on to the next land leaving a bare and desolate area behind. You can see proof of this in Africa with desertification and with the destruction of rain forests in South America. 5. The two major causes of losing the rainforests are poor farmers and corporations. Poor farmers need it to feed their families, but the corporations only for their own greed. These corporations constitute of both ranchers and farmers, depending on what part of the rainforest is being taken. Some areas are best for livestock and are used as such, yet others are used for crops. If either livestock or crops were to suddenly disappear, then the land would just be taken up by the other. This means that getting rid of livestock for crops would not decrease rainforest destruction. >Personal Health 6. I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, I believed a balanced diet is required for the upmost efficiency of one's health. 7. The only fat that is actually bad for you is transfat which is made artificially from humans. All other fats are simply stored calories. So to put it simply, the amount of fat you take in doesn't matter, only the amount of calories. The human body needs cholesterol to survive. "Cholesterol, a waxy substance produced by the liver and found in certain foods, is needed to make vitamin D and some hormones, build cell walls, and create bile salts that help you digest fat. " Although your body makes enough of cholesterol on its own having a little extra wont' kill you. It's like dessert, it's good in small quantities and okay to eat as long as you keep it under control. In fact, fats are required to live (. http://www.visionlearning.com...). 8. Once again, the balanced diet is more efficient for fat and protein intake. 9. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. Should we stop eating ice cream? People should be allowed to eat what they think tastes good as long as it doesn't interfere with the morality of society. Besides, meat contains many other essential vitamins "One way or another your body has to have protein, iron, calcium, enzymes, Vitamin B12 and amino acids every day. " Meat is the only substance that has ALL of these substances readily available for easy digestion (. http://www.powerofmeat.com...). 10. True, but many types of pesticides and other chemicals are used on plants to protect them that aren't used on animals. 11. Please post a link so I know what you're specifically talking about. I'm not going to look up your information for you. 12. Most bacteria and viruses are destroyed when cooked. So as long as your not eating your meat raw you should be okay. 13. Meat stays fresh for a long time as long as it's kept cool. 14. As do many diseases in animals. They will start to act sick, have diarrhea, and other symptoms of the specific disease. 15. Link please. 16. This is a gross overstatement by the media to sell their stories. It is much more likely for cancer to be caused by genetics, obesity, and physical inactivity. Plus "In fact, he says, the polyunsaturated fatty acids or PUFAs in vegetable seed oils are the bane of human health — they actually cause cancer, diabetes, obesity, aging, thrombosis, arthritis, and immunodeficiencies. Their only appropriate use, he says, is as ingredients in paints and varnishes. " Soy beans are also believed to make carcinogenic substances when cooked. (. http://www.newtreatments.org...) 17. Only with improper care and illegal activity such as selling meat taken from a sick animal. >Personal Finances 18. Most vegetarians cook their foods and use vegatable oil to cook it which is extremely unhealthy. They also have a fat deficiency where the only fats they do get are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats. 19. They cost less because the food is smaller in quantity and calories. >Ethics 20. I love animals as well, in fact, I hope to become a veterarinarian. Not enough characters left, I will continue on your list in the next round.

My opponent makes two really simple, really flawed points. But before I start with them, I want to make a quick point. All of his arguments use statistics and other claims that he never sources at all. There's no way to actually verify he's telling the truth in this case. Insofar as he didn't do that, you're prefering my arguments over his because I'm at least providing citations and sources to voters so they can verify I'm being honest. And, don't let him just make up for it in the next round by retroactively providing them since I don't have another round to respond to them, which makes it inherently unfair for him to just save arguments and sources until I don't get a chance to respond to them. Animal Testing is cruel/inhumane:First, ignore his cosmetic testing example. I'll concede that animals should not be tested for the safety of different cosmetic products, but rather only should they be tested on for medical reasons (i.e. the development of different medicines/vaccines/techniques). Second, turn this argument in my favor. Animal testing gives us what we need to fight diseases and sickness in both animals and humans, leading to the reduction of pain and suffering for both animals and humans. I solve for long-term suffering. Still (1): "Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ... Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering. In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of ... animals. ... Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases."Third, his argument is just untrue. We do everything we can to ensure that animals aren't harmed and don't suffer. Still continues:"The USDA and National Institutes of Health regularly inspect research institutions to verify the well-being and care of animals ... animals used in research do not suffer more pain or distress than animals outside the lab. In fact, lab animals often receive the best of care because of their value to researchers. Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. ... only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits. ... Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs." Fourth, even if you buy his argument that animals are suffering from testing, the affirmative doesn't provide a single reason why this isn't something that can't be solved back for by proposiong tougher restrictions and oversight on animal research to make sure that any experimentation on animals involves the absolute minimual amount of suffering, if any suffering even needs to be inflicted, and that the suffering is applied in a humane fashion. Just because the way it's being performed in the status quo isn't optimal, that doesn't justify doing away with the entire system. That's like saying you need to buy a new car because you're headlights are starting to get dimmer. Just fix the faulty parts and you're golden.Fifth, there's no impact to his speciesism argument. All he says is that "Grrrr don't be speciesist, you speciesist!" like it's some fancy buzzword that awards him free elo. He's not actually giving any kind of reason why speciesism is bad, which becomes problematic since speciesism is just irrelevant. The "hunter in the woods" analogy is a good example of this: imagine you and you're hunting dog are out in the woods and you stumble across a rather angry bear. You're faced with two choices: run and have the bear catch you and kill you since you're dog is going to outrun you, or sic your dog on the bear and run. The choice isn't even debatable; as much as you love your dog and care about its wellbeing, we all inherently prefer our own wellbeing over the wellbeing of other animals. Sixth, his comparison between animals and the mentally challenged is faulty. There are certain categories that distinguish between the two. Frey (2):"to include the baby by means of the potentiality argument: the baby is potentially rational. ... to include the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the similarity argument: in all other respects except rationality and perhaps certain mental accomplishments, the severely mentally-enfeebled betray strong similarities to other members of our species ... One might try to include both babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the religious argument: babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled possess immortal souls. ... the religious argument does separate both from Fido, who is not conceded an immortal soul by the argument's proponents."Seventh, we can't place animals on the same level as humans because they are incapable of grasping ethical premises, which makes them unable to enter a community of moral agents. Cohen (3):"Patterns of conduct are not at issue. Animals do ... exhibit remarkable behavior at times. Conditioning, fear, instinct, and intelligence all contribute to species survival. Membership in a community of moral agents nevertheless remains impossible for them. Actors subject to moral judgment must be capable of grasping the generality of an ethical premise in a practical syllogism. Humans act immorally often enough, but only they ... can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to he performed. The moral restraints imposed by humans on themselves are thus highly abstract and are often in conflict with the self-interest of the agent. Communal behavior among animals ... does not approach autonomous morality in this fundamental sense. Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed ... is done with a guilty mind" Alternatives to Animal Testing: First, even if he's winning that there are better alternatives to animal testing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't test. Just because there's a better way to get to work than walking (i.e. driving is preferable to walking) doesn't exclude walking from being a way we can travel to work. Second, alternatives just don't replace animal testing. Murali (4): "The list of proposed alternatives to animal research proposed in the article calling for an end to it include prevention programs, epidemiological studies, autopsies, in vitro research in cell cultures and computer modelling. The first three are not alternatives at all. They don’t actually lead to the development of novel treatments, just a better understanding of the efficacy of existing ones. Meanwhile the last two are already commonly used in most labs, but prior to and in conjunction with work with animals. And as powerful as modern computers are, there’s still simply no comparison – the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present."This has two impacts: one, that his proposed alternative of in vitro testing doesn't actually replace animal research, but rather is used in conjunction with it, so that's not actually a reason to get rid of animal testing, and two, that no current alternatives are as viable as animal testing is at present.Third, his claim that animals are bad test subjects to compare to humans is just blatantly false. Murali continues:"Researchers are very aware that animals aren’t people. Obviously animal responses aren’t the best possible predictor of treatment effects or side-effects in individual humans. But, what most scientists study are evolutionarily conserved physiological processes, that is, processes that are similar across different species. Say someone is developing a drug that should act on opioid receptors. The questions researchers ask are – does the drug target what it’s supposed to, and then, does that give rise to a benefit in treating a disease? To this end, mouse opioid receptors work just as well as human ones. Far from treating animals like small humans, individual animal models and even strains within individual animals are analysed many times over for their suitability to the research being done, and constantly improved until the best possible parallel is found. One strain of mouse, for instance, is very good for replicating a human-like pathology of asthma compared to others that barely develop any signs of respiratory illness. Instead of rejecting all mouse models of asthma as useless, researchers choose the strain that allows them to best approximate the problem."Sources:(1) - Tom Still [Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison].Animal testing: Beyond the protests, instances of mistreatment are rare. WTN News. http://wtnnews.com... (2) - R. G. Frey. Animal Rights. Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun., 1977), pp. 186-189. Oxford University.(3) - Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October 1986, pp. 865–870.(4) - http://theconversation.com...;

I have tried to upload this four times sorry for the inconvenienceMy argument addresses specifically the/ unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. - I’ll keep that in mind. Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you’ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren’t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn’t a stretch to say this is also possible. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified- Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below. If veganism was globalized- Don’t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking. The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it. That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. –Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong. Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it. Must be having a problem with the sources so I just write the title of themSource: Plants feel pain (howstuffworks)Vitro meat pro and cons (Petridishtoplate)Self-awareness (Wikipedia)

You're right I still have not told you what my answer is. It is obviously I would choose the human but this debate is not about that. It is going about experimenting with animals if you do not understand you have to search the Internet then my point is that you are trying to divert the current topic to let me choose between the choice of race is obvious that I would choose my race. But it is very discriminatory on your part to tell me to choose because human or animal is to take a life and I am not the one to choose, So if you are going to speak it then face the issue of front saying why do you think this is right this is the only thing that you wonder is not asked you to make me choose between giving life or removing it, Examine your thoughts better. From Zareth To thort

I will disregard your last statement as it simply emphasizes your sentiment and doesnt try to put any argument. If you believe in Darwinism and the 'survival' of the fittest, you also justify violence towards other beings, theft, robbery, murder and rape. If you read a book on evolution such as the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, you would have known more about how the evolution theory applies to animal behavior and can be generalized to humans too. I dont think a society should be politically encouraged to fully support and base its ideology on the survival of the fittest. The first thing that would happen is huge layers of poverty, poor social policies and blue collar crimes being more justifiable... Your intelligence relating to you should tell you to support technology that deviates from producing animal products and looking for alternatives. There is already a technology that produces food that tastes like meat! That meat is expensive, but technological advances will get you to your juicy tasty meat. Use your intelligence, get a Phd in biology or biochemistry and solve that problem, dont pour salt on animals wounds and dont make your stomach their graveyard. Henceforth, the intelligence point just back fires at you when you tried to establish some supremacist view on differences that exist between us and animals. The pain should get more of our attention, cause pain is the feeling that is shared between all earth species.

You don't eat dogs even if they don't do anything.You haven't given me a reason why.But it has been proven that dogs always to something for there owners or for themselves.Why would I care about what a dog does for itself?There are some dogs who don't work for the force and they still always stay in the front yard and protect there owners.Again, I have addressed this. This argument does not apply to non-owners or users of dogs, and dogs that are not owned or used. You have provided no reason as to why a person should not eat non-utility or non-owned dogs, or why non-users/owners should not farm or import dogs for eating.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.I already addressed that this is an appeal to pity, and therefore invalid. But, I'll answer the question if it satisfies you. I wouldn't feel anything, because I would be dead. While I was being killed(not after/whilst being eating) if I was kill in a manner when I was concious and/or not painless otherwise, I would probably feel surprised and in a panic. That being said, killing whilst the subject of the killing is not able to feel pain is also an option.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?I have not argued that we should eat dogs. I have argued that it is permissable to eat dogs. I have also pointed out in the last round that your argument does not apply to dogs that do not perform a task or utility for humans(protection falls under this category).When people want to kill the dog they kill them in a brutal way.This is just animal cruelty.Killing and eating dogs does not imply that people must kill them in a brutal fashion. You have not provided any evidence of this.How would you feel if you had a pet and then one day you realised it was gone and eaten? That would be sad.We're not arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat a person's pet. We're arguing about whether or not it is permissable to eat dogs. Again, as I have pointed out several times at this point, your argument fails to address why someone should not eat a dog that is not owned.I will answer your question because it seems to fustrate you when they remain unanswered, although I have already pointed out that they are irrelevant:I would feel angry and sad.You have, by and large, simply repeated your talking points.

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

A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights It is my burden in this debate to show that animals have rights. If it can be shown that animal rights do exist it seems to me to follow that a just society ought to recognize them. Thus if I can show Animal Rights exist, I win this debate. C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. From this we can conclude that the existence of rights is not impacted by these types of differences and are thus inherent. Certain rights exist independent of human differences. It seems reasonable to accept that all animals, human or not, inherently have rights despite differences. They ought to be respected. Unless my opponent can show reasonable argumentation as to why humans, of all animals, inherently have rights for a reason not applicable to other animals then it follows that all animals have rights. P1. Humans have rights P2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etc P3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights C. Animals have rights C2: Needless Suffering To be free from needless suffering is perhaps the most fundamental right. If something is capable of needlessly suffering, inherently there exists a right to not be subject to such suffering. This leads us with one simple question. Can Animals suffer? The general consensus is that some animals do in fact feel pain. Many governments around the world recognize this truth and have in response passed regulations that minimize or eliminate such pain. For example the U.S. Government has such regulations. "The requirement or recommendation to consider the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals when conducting research in the United States is constituted in federal law, regulations, and guidelines, enforced by the US Public Health Service Policy, and promulgated by various professional organizations"(1) If we accept, as most do that animals are capable of needlessly suffering, then it follows that a just society would not allow such animals to suffer needlessly. P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental right P2: Animals are capable of suffering C2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer Conclusion Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U.S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I thank Con for their arguments. I shall address Con’s arguments and defend mine simultaneously. R1) Animal Testing Con has dropped my arguments on humane treatment and alternatives to animal testing. I shall provide some alternatives to animal testing that have been proven to be effective. RIA. Synthetic Organs Con has dropped my argument on in vitro alternatives to animal testing. These in vitro methods also involve culture testing and testing on synthetic organs. Institutes and organizations such as the Wyss Institute at Harvard have now begun a form of biological engineering that allows for the manufacture of synthetic human tissue, a concept called the “organ on the chip”. “… the concept of an ‘organ on a chip’, which involves placing the human cells and fluids necessary to mimic the complexity of human physiology on a single, tiny piece of see-through, flexible silicone rubber the size of a USB stick. In a new startup, Emulate, these chips will be mass-produced for the first time. The chips have fluid flowing through them, so you can connect them to each other, creating a ‘human on a chip’ where lungs, livers, intestines, skin, kidneys and eyes can be integrated to simulate how a whole body would interact with a new drug.” [1. http://goo.gl...] This involves a process where researchers “recreate the conditions the cells find themselves in by using micro-engineering to provide them with all the cellular integration, fluids and even mechanical forces that they are used to, such as breathing in and out. We can also connect them in our human bioemulation platform to model and better understand diseases, and to study how humans respond to drugs.” Researchers have also started manufacturing miniature synthetic organs, by mimicking human tissue via. in vitro samples of cells; these are mimicked, with human enzymes, hormones, proteins and cellular structure mimicked to create faux human tissue, perfect to show reactions with drugs. RIB. Micro-dosing “In 2006, the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) introduced guidelines for testing very small ‘microdoses’ of drugs in humans. These are concentrations less than a one-hundredth of the therapeutic dose. Because the concentrations are so low, the drugs can be tested in a small number of patients without the level of safety data normally required before a phase I study. These early tests, dubbed ‘phase 0’ studies, would show, for instance, how the drug is distributed and broken down in the body, and whether it hits the right molecular target.” [2. http://goo.gl...] These microdoses will provide enough data to apply while using in vitro testing, allowing for synthetic organ testing’s accuracy to be greater than that of animal testing. RIC. Humane Treatment Pro has still not responded to my contention that even when testing is required (if it is required), animals must be treated humanely, allowing for the application of a moral due to animals. Some animals will invariably die or be injured in testing, but if a right to humane treatment is recognized, it wouldn't curtail all testing, and regulation does minimize animal suffering. This strict regulation combined with more usage of the alternatives will, overall, control animal abuse and allow for recognition of moral due. RID. Life Equivalence As described in the definitions, one animal’s life [by the ideology of animal rights] equals one human’s life, i.e. an animal can be sacrificed for the lives of many humans, and vice versa. Therefore, even in grave situations where animal testing may be required (if at all required after the above methods) without application of humane treatment, then animal testing for one human life is unforgivable; it depends on the numbers. Via. this ideology, all lives are equal, and one can be sacrificed for many. R2) Vegan Diet RIIA. Vitamin B12 B12 concentration in blood cells can be increased via. fortification of B12 in artificial dairy products, breakfast cereals and nutritional yeast. The primary sources of B12 in fortified foods are the bacteria Propionibacterium shermanii and Pseudomonas denitrificans. [3. De Baets S, Vandedrinck S, Vandamme EJ. “Vitamins and Related Biofactors.” Encyclopedia of Microbiology. 2000:837-853.] The daily value for B12 is 2.4 µg for a healthy person above the age of 14. [4. http://goo.gl...] 2.4 µg can easily be achieved per day using fortified foods and supplements. [5. http://www.veganhealth.org...] RIIB. Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Alpha-Linolenic acid (ALA) is the primary form of Omega-3 PUFAs. ALA is converted into a percentage of DHA and EPA after process by the body. Certain vegan sources actually contain more ALA percentage than meat sources. Flaxseed oil contains 59% ALA [6. http://www.osel.co.nz...], and kiwifruit seed oil contains 63% ALA [7. http://www.osel.co.nz...], as opposed to most fish oils, which contain 9.2 % ALA (approximately). [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Therefore, Omega-3 PUFAs can be gained via. vegan means. Therefore, a vegan diet is sufficiently nutritious for humans. R3) Morality RIIIA. Justice Justice and fairness are relative and subjective. Animals do not have the level of intellectual capability required to disobey their instinct. Animals rely on their instinct, and, therefore, cannot be considered “at fault” for actions. Morality and immorality are human concepts, and must be extended by humans only. But discriminating morality to humans as they are the creators of it combats the very concept of justice and fairness. In a fair community, all moral entitlements and dues must be recognized, else the community is regarded as morally unjust. Secondly, humans do not fulfill their responsibilities either, by killing other species. The species-limited superiority is discrimination in a dictatorial manner. The instincts obeyed by animals are necessary in ensuring an ecological balance; but with the current non-primitive society of most humans, human instincts do not allow for an ecological balance. [9. Singer, Peter (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06171-130-5.] RIIIB. Responsibilities Animals do have responsibilities, and they do fulfill them. But animals do not have the same rights as humans. For example, animals’ responsibility, engineered via. instinct into their genes, is to maintain an ecological balance and to survive and ensure the survival of the species. As humans violated the very limits of the ecological balance by forming an advanced civilization (to note, by destroying ecosystems, etc.), humans have more moral responsibilities. Morality rises as the level of immorality rises. Therefore, as animals fulfill their responsibilities that are distinct from humans, they are entitled to moral rights and dues, at least in a just system. Hence, justice requires the recognition of animal rights. R4) Symbiosis v. Exploitation Killing an animal and saving many animals actually equates with the defined concept of ethics, wherein we would sacrifice one to save many. But animals receive their due only with animal testing specifically meant for animals; the symbiosis must involve giving back as much as we take. This is not accorded to animals. R5) Animals and humans have no differences (based on rights) RVA. Equal Distribution of Rights The mentally handicapped are humans by definition. If humans have rights, then the mentally handicapped have rights as they are humans. The “inherency of rights” argument is baseless merely because the mentally handicapped are humans, and have rights. Being mentally handicapped does not forfeit rights. Rationality is not the criterion for moral rights. Why are moral rights against pain and unnecessary suffering limited to those that think rationally by human definition of it? There is no ethical strength or logic to this argument, as equality is the essence of justice and fairness. Justice is to give each their due and treat without discrimination. Making those think irrationally suffer needlessly is sadistic and discriminative, and, therefore, demeaning to the very concept of justice. I would like Con to note that the resolution is “justice requires the recognition of animal rights”. Therefore, a just, fair society must recognize animal rights, else that society is unjust. I am not stating that all societies should recognize animal rights; I proclaim that if a society does not recognize animal rights, it is unfair. Justice rests on equality. RVB. Empathy When an average person looks into the face of a puppy or even a chick in pain, the person empathizes with the animal and feels its pain. The person also feels sorrow at the pain and attempts to help the animal. If empathy applies to an animal, then equal treatment also does. Empathy is an internal compulsion to act, pressing on our individual moral compasses. If we feel empathy or sympathy for animals, it seems they deserve the right to respect. The resolution is affirmed.

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...


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

The use of lab rats in scientific research should be continued. Thank you, logical-master123, for engaging in this debate. I will clarify the debate's focus and defend the use of lab rats specifically bred for laboratory use. However, I do not support animal cruelty or defend all laboratories or experiments. I only need to demonstrate the importance of using lab rats in some laboratories to win this argument.

The burden of proof lies with the opposing side, as they argue against the current practice of using lab rats in experiments. They must propose an alternative method or abandon laboratory testing altogether.

1. Death and harm: The opposing side's arguments about death and harm to animals are irrelevant to the debate's topic. The use of lab rats is essential for pre-clinical trials to ensure safety. These rats are often bred specifically for the lab, which means they have only known captivity. If scientists didn't use lab rats, they would have to capture wild rats, which would be more harmful. Moreover, lab rats provide valuable genetic mutants that help understand the effects of certain treatments. Without this knowledge, it would be impossible to study various diseases that don't occur similarly in other animals.

2. Lab rats spreading disease: The opposing side seems unaware that diseases like cancer and Parkinson's are not infectious. There's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents, as long as proper precautions are taken.

3. The "solution" of testing in humans: The opposing side suggests testing in humans, but this is already done in clinical trials. Preclinical studies are safety tests, and extending them to humans would either encounter the same problems as with rodents or halt drug development. Human studies are not necessarily better substitutes for animal testing, as they can take decades to monitor.

My argument is a continuation of the status quo, with regulated treatment of animals to minimize their suffering. Rats are crucial for studying diseases and treatments, as they are genetically malleable and have behavior and physiology more relevant to humans than other rodents. Rats and mice make up 95% of all animal research, with rats being used 50% more often than mice. The vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods can be attributed to rats.

Our primary concern should be the survival and quality of life of our own species. The research benefits both humans and animals, offering treatments for many diseases that afflict both. The alternatives for animal testing are not yet ready to replace them. The benefits of using lab rats in scientific research are clear, and we must prioritize human health and well

I feel compelled to say that just because I am debating you on this topic, it does not directly reflect my opinions. You do not know that I am in favor of killing and torturing puppies. Therefore, if you offer no valid arguments, I would win the debate. You cannot make an assumption about my character and expect that to win you the debate. My opponents points: Utilitariansim: My opponent invokes utilitarianism in that he says that if it is better to kill/torture the puppy than not, then it is ok. That is my argument. If its better to kill than not to kill, then we should kill. Thank you. Kant: Kant merely states that if you can do an act and wish it to be a moral law that is unbreakable, then it is ok. So you provided one example. Here is a counter example to show why this argument invoking Kant should not matter. If a puppy does a wrong deed, and deserves torture, then you should torture it. Also, Kant is unreliable because it can cause us to do bad things. For instance: It is 1939, and you are hiding Jews in your home. That would be a good act, under Kantian Ethics. Nazis knock on your door asking if you are hiding any Jews. If you lie, you would be doing a good and moral deed under Kant. The law that would apply would be DO NOT LIE. However, if you lie, you are commiting a horrible act and a immoral act. That doesn't make sense. Therefore, Kantianism may look good on paper, but it does not stand up very well under close scrutiny. Natural Law: This is an opinionated statement. Just because you do not believe that a puppies' purpose is to be tortured and killed, it does not mean it is true. Hobbes: You are saying that because a social contract says so, it is wrong. You are invoking the fact that because someone/something says so, it is so. However, we are debating whether or not when someone/something says so, it is so. You can't invoke present conditions, since they are what we are debating about. No. I am arguing that puppies have a conscience that therefore mus be punished for any actions that deserve punishment. You misunderstand me. Bur you are still killing it. It doesn't matter why. You are advocating killing the dog. That is what I need to prove. Killing a dog as punishment was only one way. You have just provided another way. That's what we are basically debating about. Since when? Why else would we want to torture them? You are still killing the dog. It doesn't matter why. You are killing the dog. And seeing as you have done my job and justified it by saying it is for safety reasons, you just did my job. That is my point. Dogs are moral creatures. They have a sense of morality. If they know a certain action is wrong and deserves a certain punishment, they should receive that punishment if they do that action. Look at the above quote. You say yourself that dogs have a sense of morality. You are contradicting yourself. Enough said on that. < First, euthanasia is not torture. > But it is killing, which is half of the debate. So? They still have a sense of morality, so everything said above still applies. I'm sorry, but isn't that my argument? So throughout my opponents speech, he can be found not to be advocating his side, but mine. Seeing as he has done so, I really don't have much to say..... I'll just rehash my arguments: Dogs have a conscience. Dogs have a sense of morality. Therefore they know right from wrong. They know that a certain act warrants a certain punishment. If they do that act, they accept the punishment. Therefore, we would be discriminating against a species if we did not punish them. Thank you

my final argument is as follows... 1. pain is pain wherever it occurs. 2. There are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is an emotion that a subject feels when something out of their control affect their feelings. 3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels. 4. what is ethical is moral. 5.Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own. 6. To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral. 7. Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed. 8. Animals have the same rights as people, especially in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. 9. We have the same duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other. 10. This direct duty is to be kind to animals (or each other) and also a duty to not be cruel to animals (or one another). 11. For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other"s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual's rights. 12. Since there are rights that prevent us from harming animals, including monkeys, they are considered moral object. 13. All of us who have inherited value have it equally, whether they are humans, animals, and monkeys or not. 14. Animals- as monkeys- fail to act immorally, have inherited values, and have rights like all human beings. 15. Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons.

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?

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

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

Yes humans are animals anyone would know that. You even admited that we started as animals. If today was some milion years ago we would be killing each other. Indeed we dont chase our tails, monkes too dont chase their tails. Indeed we dont live in a jungle, to the animals london is a jungle to them. Indeed animals dont work, but eagles go hunting for their young ones. Call a zebra an animal, zebras also see us as animals. Conclusion we are all animals with different lifestyles, mentality, abilities and appearence. Thus killing your dog is killing a fellow inocent animal and is MURDER!

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

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.

You clearly don't really understand the context of what you are saying. Because if you didn't you wouldn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again... What I don't understand is why we can't just have Wildlife parks, safari parks and so on... Anything that can let us look and observe the animals in their NATURAL habitat without disturbing them. Who are we to say that we are superior to animals and that they are inferior beings to the human race. That statement is flawed beyond measure. Who is it that carries people to safety when tsunamis hit? Elephants. Who is it that helps us find bodies after earthquakes? Dogs. Who is it that helps us find drugs at the airport? Dogs. Who is it that has carried man for years? Horses. Who is it that carts people around in the desert? Camels. The list goes on, these are just a few examples of how animals have helped the human race all these years... How does this tie in with our debate? Why should we be treating animals the way we do after all they have done and are doing for us?

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