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

The use of animals in scientific and commercial testing is crucial. Or is it? The debate centers on whether animal testing is truly essential. Let’s set aside arguments about testing cosmetics on animals, as these products are hardly essential for human survival. It stands to reason that testing non-essential products on animals is also unnecessary.

Animal testing is often justified in the context of medical research, where it might seem less objectionable than in cosmetics. However, many are unaware of alternative methods for testing medicines:

1. CeeTox offers a predictive model for drug toxicity and success rates, eliminating the need for animal testing. (http://www.ceetox.com...)
2. Organs-on-Chips replicate specific human organs virtually, allowing for accurate predictions of drug reactions without using animals. (http://wyss.harvard.edu...)
3. Testing on human blood and cells provides reliable data on the effects of new drugs.

Further alternatives can be found here: (http://www.peta.org...)

It’s crucial to acknowledge that animal testing isn’t always effective; some drugs deemed safe for animals have proven harmful to humans in cases of HIV, certain cancers, diabetes, heart issues, and more. This raises significant questions about the reliability and necessity of animal testing in medical research.

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?

A debate worth reading I would say. Thank you for allowing me to challenge you one this issue. I. Religious Grounds A. Law does not supersede preference. In many countries in many laws, there are stipulations and rights conferred onto one group or another. In the U.S. laws are written to establish greater wages for congressmen, to exclude diplomats from judicial proceedings, to require business to preferentially treat departments of government. So Law is more subjective than Religion. Ethics one of the most subjective philosophical studies. Aesthetics is a study under ethics, because ethics is a system of thought to assign value through rational means. Being of a philosophical nature and one pertaining to value, I would not deem it as a study in universal truths. B. non sequitur. It implies that life has an intrinsic value and animal life has it's place as well as human. I don;t think my opponent has made a case to assume human life is more valuable than animal life. intuitively many of us would agree but if such a value judgement is made with out legal or religious grounds then where is my opponents ethical argument for stating human life is more valuable? It is merely a moral subjective value most would agree with, making my opponent's case an appeal to Argumentum ad populum. C. I have contention with my opponent's statement, "We bear no responsibility to care for animals" I have been making this very case from religious grounds, legally pets are seen as property and being such you do have a responsibility to take care of your property. I can not buy a house and burn it down, justifying my actions as "It's mine I can do anything destructive I want," one would surely be in trouble with the rest of society. Many pets ethically have been through unnatural breeding been forced to lose some of their instinctual drives and are incapable of fending for themselves in a natural environment. Making it our responsibility to care for what we have grown. The false dichotomy is my opponents making. Again in the resolution and the first round where Pro could have made such distinctions, my opponent has not done. Meaning any exception to the caring of pet that can be found to be ethical, as it is our responsibility to do so, would negate the resolution Pro has presented. II. Symbiotic Relationship - Animal pets: In many counties Police Work dogs go home with their "human partners" They work side by side and when work is done the animal agent is a part of the family. My opponent wishes to state that such pets are only around for the jobs they facilitate. These animals do not work 24-7. They are some ones pets, some one cares for them not out of functionality but out of compassion. Which is what makes them different from livestock like chicken. - Moral Claim: My opponent admits that his reasoning for this debate would lead to a logical conclusion that most things are unethical (like watching TV). Simply put caring for pets as my opponent has quoted to be a substantial amount of money each year, is a business that drives economic growth. Many of our luxuries, the variety and choices we have in open market, All these choices allow for more jobs to be created. To ultimately deem all these businesses unethical and outlawed would leave millions more hurting to provide for the basic living needs of themselves and human family. In 2012 Animal care and services had 200,000 plus jobs with a 15% estimated growth (faster than normal economic growth) [http://www.bls.gov...]. This is just the actual animal handling services. It is not inclusive of people who work and run factories to produce pet and animal related products. This is just for the U.S. In conclusion: There are religious responsibilities to care for pets, legal responsibility to maintain property, ethical responsibility to care for what we as a society have made. My opponent has offered no ethical grounds to why humans should be treated better than animals, though I may agree. The industry of supporting pets and pet owners is a growth potential of immense value to better the lives and sustain the well being of millions of humans. Clearly the resolution, "Owning and Caring For a Pet is Unethical" has been found to be lacking substantial credence. Thank you.

OK I understand how you feel sad about how the animals are being treated badly and think that that is immoral, but it is justified. 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? As well as the benefit to the human race animal testing provides research for other animal vaccines and medicines so that just further invalidates your stance, and one more thing do you have a better idea about how to test our new medicines and chemicals to make sure that they are safe for us and that includes you by the way.

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 not on the same level as humans. We've been debating this issue for years and talk about the horrible abuse of animals and animal rights, but what is the real issue here. In your argument it seems as though you mainly defend the use of animals as a whole. To satisfy your cause we must all be vegetarians, even as far as vegans. Even if we were to find a better and healthier way to tend animals, we will still have to slaughter them and use the meat of animals for our own gain. Yes, we as humans may take the use of animals too far, but do we really want to give up on the control we have had for many years. That brings me to my first contention: A halting decrease of animal killings would lead to a population increase that would be way too much to handle. We as humans must understand that we are keeping the animals under control by using them for our benefit. We also help many species populate by using them as many species would go extinct. This would happen because of selective breeding that we use on animals. With breeding put in the animals own hands a stable balance that we had for years would cease to exist and everything would be out of control. My second contention: Animals do not have moral standards and giving them rights doesn't necessarily change anything. We hear about dog bites or mountain lion attacks all the time. Animals do not care about how they are treated. They are just trying to live there life, and when death comes, death comes. It is not necessary to give animal rights because animals can't really tell whats right from wrong. They can't tell their actions. We need to understand that we life on this planet as a whole amongst the animals and all creatures live for there personal gain. The lion kills to feed its young, we kill to feed ourselves. Both humans and animals live equally on this planet and what we do is totally moral for our own gain. This is why I believe that animal rights is a subject that isn't necessary. We kill and animals kill for our own gain and in the end it is a matter of life or death. *Note: Remember, this is a subject that i don't really care for. I am sort of for animal rights but in the end it really doesn't matter to me what happens. Sources: http://www.wnd.com... http://animalrights.about.com... http://www.pulpless.com...

Rebuttal 1Before I start, I would like to say that it is YOUR duty to debate me within the text limits you are given; redirecting me to a New York Times article and expecting me to argue with it is beyond the boundaries of this debate. In all honesty, I do not need to read the New York Times article (however, I did), I only need to read what you referenced or cited. In the last argument, you cited the last sentence, so I refuted the last sentence. You say: "I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals. " No, you actually did not. You provided a link to an article and specified the text which supported your claim. I read the text you cited and then proceeded to rebut in my response. However, you now bring up another claim which you have deemed significant: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products. " Well, that's great. It's reasurring to know that humans have donated some of their cells. However, this only refutes animal testing in the future; while it may seem as if this new way of testing works now, we must still stick to testing on animals because we know this works. If we begin to jump at every opportunity to get around testing animals, we will begin cutting corners. Rebuttal 2You completely missed my main point about Google Images. Editing is not the same picture; in fact, the word 'editing' basically means altering a primary source or document, such as a picture. You are still using the Appeal to Emotion -- while these caged animals (most are actually mice) may seem very disheartening and immoral, you must remember that not only do you automatically retrieve negative portrayal of animal testing because of the negative connotation associated with the term (which you did not refute), these caged animals are being tested with medication ranging from curing headaches to saving lives. If you really believe that testing on mice is not worth saving a patient's life, then maybe the Appeal to Emotion just doesn't work. Rebuttal 3You ask, "How can mistreating an animal be acceptable? " I have answered this several times. It is acceptable because animal testing directly leads to medications being made safer, and thus more effectiveness in its use to cure human biological needs. This is why "mistreating" an animal can be acceptable. Calling me heartless will not help; I can similarly call you heartless for not wanting to help your fellow man. The Appeal to Emotion does not work when trying to argue logic. The definition of abuse is irrelevant, because we are discussing testing on animals, which does not necessarily imply abuse -- we are discussing the implications of testing medication on animals before its release to the public. We are not discussing whether a kid should be able to kill a stray cat for no reason. Let me now defend my syllogism.1. Human lives are more valuable than animal lives -- I don't understand how you believe this is false. They cannot just be "equal," when faced with a decision that forces you to choose one over the other. Either we test on animals (which, of course, is implying that they always face death, which is not the case) and we better our medication so that they do not cause vicious side effects, or we choose not to test on animals, which could mean medication is released to the public with little or no experimentation.2. Medication must be tested before release -- It seems we both agree this is true. However, you resort to advocating new ways (and thus, not necessarily reliable) and I advocate the use of a process which has shown to be an accurate representation of how a medication will affect a living being.3. The only available test subjects are live animals -- You actually disproved this point, congratulations. There are other ways, albeit risky and perhaps unreliable, processes to test medication. Like I said, it is better to stick with an experienced process that you can be absolutely satisfactory with than rely on new methods at the risk of several negative effects. Take into consideration, for example, the expression "better be safe than sorry. "4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals -- You don't seem to understand, and I truly don't mean to be condescending at all. This may be "voluntary," but the reliability, accessibility, etc. , are all factors in this new process you have used to support your argument. The reason we test on mice and other animals is because they are so biologically similar to humans -- if a human has the ability to heal from an experimental medication, a biologically similar creature will as well; the same goes for the inability to heal.5. Medication must be tested on animals -- I have proved my point. For future reference, I am not debating Mr. Barnaby Feder of The New York Times. I am debating you. Please, if you would like to illustrate a point from a reference, which is completely fine, make a point and cite it with the article so that I know exactly what to refute. Thanks for the debate, it has been a pleasure. Good luck as well.

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat? Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience: Awareness; feelings A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i. e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals). I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.

I agree to debate animal testing with you. I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible. I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.

Hello Mr. Burns,Humans are superior to every other animal. As a human, I say that as a superior mind to 99% of the animal kingdom.We, the human race, have been a driven force for the last 13,000 years, creating civilizations and creating an infrastructure to resist the deadliest phenomenon's of nature.Let's end these 1 sentence paragraphs. I think what you are thinking of is a trade, a trade between life and materials. Because you didn't put enough info in your initial argument I infer that you're implying that we should be completely ban and criminalize the act of killing (in any way shape of form) any animal. This absolutely disgusts me due to how it destroys human nature.I am a complete Darwinist and believe in the progression of species via natural selection. Survival of the fittest. That's what I believe in. (If you do believe DON'T believe in natural selection, I gladly volunteer to talk about that.)Honestly, I think if we should, we should destroy all other life on Earth. That's fine.And I do believe that all animals (besides insects) have sentience. Able to feel happiness and pain.Though what you're implying is so GRAY.How should we decide and play god on who we should pardon and who we should kill?How should we decide which animals are good and which are bad?We should just kill animals as we see fit (excluding mentally deranged and wasteful circumstances). And do as how EVERY OTHER animal on the planet does it.

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...


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

The US federal Government should prohibit all forms of testing that involve animals.

Let's start this discussion with a quote that resonates with me: When researchers are asked why they conduct experiments on animals, they respond, "Because the animals are similar to us." When asked why it's morally acceptable to experiment on animals, they reply, "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation is built on a logical contradiction - Charles Magel. Animal experimentation is less dependable, more costly, and less humane than alternative methods.

**Contention**: Animal experimentation is not genuinely useful or reliable. A recent study involved surgically implanting coils into the heads of monkeys to monitor neural activity, but further examination revealed that the neural pathway being studied was not linked to Alzheimer's disease progression (Hansen). Drug testing is no more accurate. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, "nine out of ten drugs that show promise in animal studies fail in human clinical trials (AAVS "Problems With Animal Research)." Thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medication for pregnant women, had few problems in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens in animal tests. However, when released for human use in the late 1950s, it caused high rates of birth defects and issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Animal tests on drugs can often lead in a different direction. As a result, these drugs never advance to clinical studies or need to be pushed through human clinical trials through back channels. Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering medication, failed in animal testing but was a significant medical breakthrough for humans (AAVS "Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, which is critical for diabetics, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain relief, stimulates mice. Penicillin, a commonly used antibiotic, is lethal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and if relied upon, would have hindered medical progress.

**Contention**: There are numerous alternatives that are more dependable. Animal experimentation is not the only choice, nor is it the best. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different

Okay I never said that I said that animals shouldn't have the right to voice anything they want. You have to understand that. I love animals because I grew up with a lot of animals. I grew up on a farm. You are telling me that you think that animals can be eaten? I would hate to have that happen. So you can stop blaming me for such a bad thing!!!!

I. Religious GroundsA. I remarked that many other religious have similar verse I can not in the short space quote from every holy text. Laws are not universally accepted either. They are vastly different from many countries so this is neither a solid answer on ethics.B. The difference is being a good leader or boss. The responsibility of Dominion is not void of mercy and caring, and is not indicative of being harsh. It is the proper weighing of all situations. Some of which may be detrimental to a subordinate or to oneself.C. The value of human life over that of a sparrow is not an excuse for abusive dominion of animals. And I already agreed the money spent and energy spent on pets that results in over population, more animal abuse, and more human abuse is unethicalII. You didn't make this distinction before in your first or second round. And it is not evident in your resolution. I feel my arguments still stand as refuting your statement. Certainly the line for a functional animal like livestock is more black and white than my cat. My cat is a pet. I enjoy her company and she enjoys mine. She will on occasion yelp and scratch at the door just to see me for a few minutes and play with a turf of grass or my hat. This line is not as cut and dry as employee and employer. So no they are not simply functional. It's a healthy symbiotic relationship. Emotional as well as functional. Animals have personalities and I have to be aware of her personal needs just as much as her physical needs. It's those bonding moments that reinforce her confidence, and social standing in the home.How would you classify pets for terminally ill children or dogs for PTSD veterans? pets in the very sense of the word.Your assertion, " it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly". Is such a subjective measure. You are paying for entertainment and Internet. This money could go to helping impoverished humans. Where is the rightful percentage of how much to spend on others, and how much of the money you work for can ethically be spent on yourself. You have given no argument to where this line is. Let's say it is 10% to charity. Then once that 10% is met, a person is ethically allowed to spend the money on a pet or a movie. I would argue that people are selfish and many more people would be impoverished if a society made such rules. Who would work hard to make more money for any luxury if it was outlawed as being a needless expense. Not to mention that a society like that would quickly lobby for me to switch to rat poison instead of having my "functional pet."

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

Should it be considered morally wrong to kill sentient animals for their meat? Firstly, before I even go into the stipulations of this debate, I would like to set the definition of sentience: Awareness; feelings A cow is sentient because it can become aware of you stroking it gently, and perhaps feel good as a result. A cockroach is not sentient as it may or may not be aware that you’re standing over it (it can sense you, yes), but it certainly would not, as far as we know, feel good when you stop standing over it (i. e. insects are animals, but not sentient animals). I would like to make the reasonable assumption that animals do suffer, and not have to get into lengthy discussion as to whether a dog yelps when struck on the head with a shovel because it is suffering, or whether a cow might not suffer when being skinned alive (without the external influence of drugs). I think it is generally accepted that animals suffer (at least the sentient ones), so I am going to make this part of the assumed information for this debate, especially so we don’t waste time.

Thank you for the interesting and compelling rebuttal, Con. I.Religious Grounds A.Religion is not a system of universally applicable ethics. Not only is each religion's general view of diverse ethical situations vastly different, but also each individual's interpretation of what their god deems correct varies. This sliding scale of morality cannot be considered authoritative when considering a universal ethical question. This is why we have law that supersedes preference. B.Dominion Vs. Benevolence In your citation of Genesis 1:26 you fail to make the distinction between man having dominion over animals (man's hierarchical place in the world) and man showing undue benevolence to animals. This passage is more often cited by anti-vegans then pet advocates for its meaning. No ethical system could defend unwarranted cruelty and abuse of animals, but that does not place any burden on man to proactively care for them (especially above their own kind). C.Luke 12 Granted, Luke 12:6 says that God values the life of a sparrow. However, the very next verse states that human life is worth more than that of any sparrow (or animal for that matter). If anything, this verse justifies my claim above yours. II.Symbiotic Relationships Ultimately, there is a definitive difference between a functional animal and a pet. A functional animal may be used as food (the meat industry, the eggs of chickens), your cat (in its propensity as an exterminator), or a seeing-eye dog (to guide the blind). These are not pets any more than employees are children. They are simply functional. I suggest that it is unethical to have pets because they serve no purpose, and it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly. Overall, my assertion still stands. My values prevail, as my opponent has yet to produce evidence to justify the ownership of a pet for recreational purposes as having some value to supersede the preservation of human life.

Animals cloning is beneficial I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.Full ResolutionAnimals cloning is benefical. BoP is shared. Definitions Animals: "... A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly... Any such living organism other than a human being. Clone: the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organismBeneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in goodWhat i am biscally saying is that animal cloning is beneficial for the human race. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...

I am against animal rights. I shall define animal rights. Animal rights-rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and any and all other services to humans. Whoever accepts shall say why animal rights are a positive and should stay in place. Burden of proof is shared here.

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

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...

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?


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

Should animals be utilized for research (pro:yes con:no)
I have certainly gained a significant amount of knowledge and am looking forward to a spirited debate. Let's get straight to the point.

My argument is encapsulated by the following syllogism:
P1: Causing harm or suffering to animals is cruel and unethical.
P2: Animals are subjected to harm and suffering in the name of research.
C1: Utilizing animals for research is cruel and unethical.

P3(a): Animal research is costly and unreliable.
P3(b): Advances in science and technology have provided alternatives to the expensive, unethical, and unreliable practice of using animals for research.

C2: There is no longer a need to use animals in research.

I will now provide arguments for each of my premises.

Premise 1: Animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and distress. It is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our own benefit. Animal research often involves them enduring a great deal of hardship, pain, and even unnatural death. While humans consider themselves superior to animals due to our ability to reason and our greater intellect, science has shown that animals can possess cognitive faculties that are superior to humans in certain respects. Animals are not inferior, but have simply been underestimated due to human fixation on language and technology. Animals display remarkable social and kinesthetic intelligence, albeit in ways that diverge from our own, which is why their abilities are often undervalued and unrecognized. A quick read through these articles (Article 1: http://www.cracked.com... Article 2: http://www.buzzfeed.com...) highlights the incredible and varied capabilities of animals.

Premise 2: Each year, over 100 million animals, including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds, are subjected to trauma and killed in U.S. laboratories for various purposes such as biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and testing of chemicals, drugs, food, and cosmetics. Prior to their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them – they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. Sentient, thinking, feeling animals are treated like disposable laboratory equipment

Thesis: The book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is more important in modern times than the Holy Bible. Definition: Since there is no word English to express the notion of "Any animal that is not human", "animal" does not mean that and it's a fallacy, defining a word by itself ("Animal: any animal that is not human"), I invented a word: Outcast, Outcasts in plural. It will always have a capital letter. I ask my opponent to use the same terminology. Before anything, it is important to explain Peter Singer's thesis to my opponent and to the readers. "There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should tat human beings. (...) "Each to count for one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics f those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America could require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave em with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element--the taking into account the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be--must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman." Animal Liberation, chapter 1- ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL The book also mentions the different ways in which Outcasts are treated to be made into corpses for the market, how Outcast experimentation destroys sentient animals for things as futile as cosmetics. It is also important that this be quickly described here. Part 1 - Outcast experimentation. "The report tells us that 1,416,643 animals were experimented on in fiscal year 2000. This number is broken down by species: 69,516 dogs, 25,560 cats, 57,518 primates, 505,009 guinea pigs, 258,754 rabbits, 23,934 sheep, 66,651 pigs, 69126 "other" farm animals, and 166,429 "other" animals. According to the report 104,202 (7.4%) of these animals were used in painful or stressful experimentation without benefit of anesthesia. (The report is Internet accessible at http://www.aphis.usda.gov... in the annual reports section.)" That is only for the USA. Source:http://www.all-creatures.org... Draize test: test used in determining how irritant a product is into eyes. Every time you see a warning on a bleach bottle saying it's irritant, you can be sure it was poured on a rabbit's eyes before hitting the shelves. This test consists in placing a potencially irritant product in an Outcast's eyes. Rabbits are commonly used as they do not have tears to can their eyes. Some images with the censor ON. Turn it off and you won't need to watch Saw 7. http://www.google.pt... LD50 test: This test aims to find the concentration of a toxic product required to kill 50% of test Outcasts. Needless to say, those that survive are extremely sick and not always put out of their misery. These are the "standard procedures". Many other imaginative tests were made, including turning female monkeys into psychopaths, using a "rape rack" to get them pregnant, and observing how they treat their children ("One of their favourite trick was to crush the infant's skull with their teeth. But the really sickening behaviour pattern was that of smashing the infant's face to the floor, and then rubbing it back and forth.", Engineering and Science 33:8 (1970) (source from PS's (Peter Singer) book). Part 2 - Turning living animal into "meat". Meat is a depreciative term, and for this reason I will prefer the term "corpse" or "flesh" to it. 1- Chickens These are used for flesh and eggs. The USA alone killed 18Billion chickens in 2008. http://www.all-creatures.org... The most important is that chickens live in what we commonly call "inhumane" conditions. They live in their own faeces, get intoxicated from it's ammonia and live in extremely small spaces. This is for the sake of profit. For green paper, in sum. 2- Veal This is possibly the most cruel form of Outcast exploitation. Calves are taken from their mothers when they are infants, fed on artificial milk and kept in boxes small enough for them to be unable to move or even turn around. They are also kept in a constant iron deficit to keep their flesh white. For this reason their cages are made out of wood, with no iron screws or other components. Calves would otherwise lick those. Other forms of flesh production are similar, simply imagine how you would make your exploitation of slave Outcasts the most productive, that's how the factories are, neglecting all the needs from Animal beings. It is now time to compare this book to the Bible. Presenting the Bible will be my opponent's burden, and so will explaining the importance of the book to today's society. Please do not use religious reasons for this, such as "It's the word of god.", it's a book with the same status as any fiction book. The importance of Animal Liberation should be quite clear by now: people ought to know that what they are eating is not meat, it's a corpse, a sentient animal that was made a slave and suffered. The point of this debate is not to debate over whether or not PS's thesis is correct, although it has been proved that Outcasts are able of the same emotions as humans, keep in mind that evolution didn't "go towards humans", and that every other species humans evolved from is not inferior in ability to us, in fact, we have common ancestors we animals capable of killing any human without needing a tool. The only thing that makes us different in brain capability is our cortex, IT DOES NOT MAKE OUR EMOTIONS MORE STRONG. That's the limbic system that many Outcasts have more developed, or at least just as developed as humans. And as a final note, I am not English, and the best I get from English culture is the internet.

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?

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

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...

What if you are the animal getting tested do you rather die or hurt really badly ? DO you feel ashamed of yourselves ? Does Sacrifice to me you're healthy

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

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 accept. Pro has proposed a rather interesting argument. Pro states that it is cruel to keep animals in zoos. I disagree wholeheartedly. Firstly I would like to surface the rather grueling fact of extinction. Many animals kept in zoos are in there to preserve their particular race, when an animal(bird) etc, etc is kept in a safe, clean environment it is more likely to thrive than in the wild. Which means that in some cases, zoos are actually helping species regain their ability to carry on breeding and making bigger their race. A common argument to this is that animals can breed freely in the wild without becoming extinct. This is wrong because under the current influence of man this actually is not possible for some species, eg elephants, could become extinct as they are wanted for many things, skins, tusks and so on. Another example would be tuatara,s if it weren't for zoos and recreational parks we wouldn't ever be able to see them. Secondly i would like to bring up the matter of the public. when are the general public ever going to be able to see animals like giraffes and zebras,anywhere other than zoos? A family trip to the zoo is always one to be remembered, zoos give you an opportunity to see and sometimes even feed the animals in their natural (or very similar) environment. And anyway here is something you can't argue, there is nothing like watching two elephants get it on... Some might argue that people can go on safaris or wildlife park visits in other countries. That would be ideal, but unfortunately this is a luxury most families can not afford. Going to Africa just to see a lion is out of the question for many people...

org and welcome you to it. Second, I thank you for starting this debate and wish you luck. On to my contentions. You states in your second round arguement that, "the only reason they should kill animals is when they are hurt and need to be put down. " I wish I could agree with this, but I simply cannot. Your first sentence says that humans are just like animals and should be treated just as if they were humans because they have feelings too. Well, you contradict yourself because by saying that you want to give animals the same rights of humans, you are actually giving MORE reasons to continually out them down. When a Police Officer is threatened, he must shoot the attacker, however, if the dog is the attacker, the Police Officer must still shoot. You contradict your whole argument by saying you want to treat them like humans and want to only put them down if their hurt. We cant do both, its either only kill humans when their hurt, or kill animals when it is necessary because a human is killed daily because it was necessary to do so. I urge a CON ballot

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