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

Medical testing on animals produces more benefits than harm, but it's crucial to consider the ethical implications.
Hello GeorgiaAshely, it's a pleasure to meet you. Let's clarify the topic at hand, which revolves around the practice of testing newly developed medical substances on animals to ensure their quality and safety before human use. In the following rounds, I will explore the subject of animal rights and the necessity of animal testing when alternatives exist. I'll also shed light on the reality of animal testing in laboratories and how it often leads to abuse.
Firstly, animals have rights just like humans do. It's unethical to exploit them solely for our benefit. When medical experiments are conducted on animals, they are often injected with substances whose effects are unknown, which can result in fatal side-effects or even death. Injecting innocent animals with unknown substances is immoral, hypocritical, and goes against the societal values that emphasize the importance of life.
We should not compare animal testing to butchery. Animals raised for meat are provided with proper care and shelter, and when they mature, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimal pain. However, sample animals in laboratories suffer excruciating pain until they die and are then incinerated. If there were no alternatives, animal testing might be seen as a necessary evil, but this is not the case. Alternatives to animal testing exist and are being developed.
For instance, cultured cells can be used to perform safety assurance experiments for cosmetics, testing skin corrosion and irritation. Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be conducted using donated human blood to study their effects and interaction with the immune system. Innovative biotechnology firms like Hurel have developed 3-D in vitro human "livers" to study chemical breakdown in the human body. The Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Advanced human-based brain-imaging and recording techniques like MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT can replace animal experiments and provide rich data about the human brain.
Antibodies used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases can now be produced using DNA made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. Microdosing can provide information on the safety of experimental drugs and how they are metabolized in humans. Ninety-five percent of medical schools in the U.S. have replaced animal laboratories with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience.
In conclusion, experimenting

Since my opponent forfeited this round, it will somehow be unfair for me to write a long refutation. I will refute my opponent's argument as brief as I can. . Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights.What do you mean in this case? How does the animal testing violate this rights. Please specify. I think my opponent is saying that the environment for the experiment of animals are harmful. However, it is highly regulated so the animal testing is done safely. Also, for the happiness and protection, without any animal testing, it won't be able to cure the diseases of animals, either. So, animal testing will worth more and more animals being cured and protected from diseases, and that will give surely more happiness to the animals. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative What does it mean for inaccuracy and being alternative? How are animal testing replaceable. Please clarify this.Living things like humans and animals are too complex that there are not any appropriate things to replace the animals.

Thanks for instigating this debate, as Con I will argue that if I accepts utilitarianism I should accept that animals have equal rights to humans. Disclaimer: I am a utilitarian and a vegetarian myself yet I am not playing devils advocate.I chose Con for two simple reasons: "Equal" and "Rights"RightsUtilitarianism has no regards for natural rights, in fact proponents of natural rights and rights theories are most of the time direct opponents of utilitarianism. It is true that some rights are prescriptively useful for the utilitarian normative idea but as soon as rights stand in the way of welfare the utilitarian puts the rights aside.EqualSince I dismissed the "rights" part of "equal rights" I will treat equal as in equal moral responsibility."Normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform extremely painful or lethal scientific experiments on normal adult humans, kidnapped at random from public parks for this purpose, adults who entered parks would become fearful that they would be kidnapped. The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment. The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon." (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics chap. 3)With this in mind it should be clear why animals are not to be treated equal to humans.

Eating animal meat purely for pleasure is unethical. Contention 1: Rights and Preferences A snail is an animal. My opponent is not opposed to eating a snail for pleasure. Resolution negated. Pigs and cows are NOT self-aware. Self-awareness is assessed most effectively with the mirror test (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). Dolphins, chimpanzees, and a few others have passed the test and are therefore considered self-aware. Pigs and cows have not passed. Yes, they can feel pain, but that is a different matter. ======== Contention 2: The Moral Imperative A.) My opponent should not overpower me and take my money because if he does so, it will sow distrust. He may go to jail. More directly, though, no one will trust him and he will be hurt in the long run. A person may feel that it is morally wrong to rob someone at gunpoint, but this feeling originates out of a selfish desire to continue to be accepted in a community. Slavery has a similar problem. Rape as well: women do not want to be raped, so even if you rape one time you will get the reputation of a rapist and women will avoid you, so overall you will have fewer children. The reader may feel that these things are morally wrong, and that is correct. But this is the reason why they are wrong. I ask the reader to step outside of the evolutionary directive and understand WHY we consider these behaviors to be wrong. It is not truly because they are harmful to others; it is because they have social repercussions. I am perfectly aware of the workings of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not saying that we should follow the moral imperative simply because it is natural. I am saying that we should follow it because the fact that it is natural makes it the only true option. All other options are arbitrary and artificial. Subsequently, how can we even hope to define morality without at least basing it upon our evolutionary roots? B.) The analogy is inapplicable. It is impossible to put a human brain into a chimpanzee without completely changing the brain structure. But false analogies aside, the brain is a large part of what makes us human. A chimpanzee with a human brain would be more human than chimpanzee. ======== Contention 3: Eating Meat and Suffering A.) I'm not playing around. My opponent has just conceded for the second time. My opponent provided no definitions in round 1. Is it my fault that he was using an unconventional definition of "animal"? No. My definition is the one which will be accepted. B.) Ethics do not have to perfectly model reality. It is easily conceivable that there is a scenario in which animals are painlessly euthanized. There is nothing morally wrong with this. My opponent objects to factory farms; it is true that factory farms are very common right now, but euthanasia is still entirely possible. "If I were to painlessly murder everyone in a city in their sleep I would be acting in a way that did absolutely nothing to increase my victims suffering." This is inapplicable. Humans are capable of self-awarely considering the future. Humans have a truly conscious desire not to die. Animals merely have evolutionary directives. ======== Contention 4: Source of Morality My opponent misunderstands the true source of morality. This has been addressed in contention 2. ======== Case Pro ======== (These are not contentions. This is a syllogism. However, I will retain my opponent's labeling system.) Contention #1: Agreed. Contention #2: Wrong. This is addressed repeatedly in my case. Contention #3: False, since #2 is false. Contention #4: False. See my second contention. Contention #5: True, but irrelevant.

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

Contention 1: Animal Rights According to National Geographic Magazine April 2013 cloning requires the need to inject DNA into egg cells of the surrogate mother, causing the surrogate to develop the baby. This is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. According to http://www.gracelinks.org... a 2007 study showed cloning success rates to be low as 10%. Cloned animals tend to have severe physical deformities in cloned animals, including oversized navels, oddly-shaped heads (cows that have heads shaped like those of bulldogs), immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and malformed arteries. Not really a humane thing to do, is it? Contention 2: Not commercially beneficial According to http://www.gracelinks.org... it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred. 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. Contention 3: No guarantee of safety There is no such thing as a complete risk assessment. Since cloning is still in experimental phase, people cannot absolutely conclude that something is safe. Just three years before the Chernobyl nuclear accident, B. A. Semenov, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety division, had written about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl: “The design feature of having more than 1,000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system—a serious loss-of-coolant accident is practically impossible” This example can also be used on the issue of cloned foods. Conclusion: Cloning subject animals to unneeded suffering to both clones and surrogates, due to high risk clones having bad health. This is combined with the high cost and low demand of clones to consumers, also with unguaranteed health of the food products. So basically cloning is bad for consumers, cloning industries, and also the animals. To wrap it up, it’s not beneficial.

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

I am sorry about the previous round, I had an after school activity and my bus schedules were messed up so by the time I got home, it was too late :(. But i provided refutation for both of Con's rebuttals to make up for my previous round. I wll flow through the organization my opponent has, then move to weighing. I will start with his 1st rebuttal, then move to his second. First rebuttalFirst, my opponent states animals are recognized as individuals. Wether or not they are does deduce that as a whole, they deserve justice and require animal rights. His other point only reaffirms me by showing the cruelty of HUMANS, not animals, organization's actions were defined by humans, not by the animals so don't let this trick you. Contention 1I agree with the nutrition portion since it provides a reason. However, the pleasure is. My opponent goes on to state how humans are the greatest and how they exploit animals. But by stating this, my opponent acknowledges that without rights, humans would be free to do this. So, we then understand with rights, animals wont be exploited/abused for no reason. First, my opponent attempts to refute my just society point by talking about how humans abuse animals. Yet this clearly shows that animals DO need rights or they will be abused by humans. He follows up with a survival of the fittst point, my highly doubt that struggle involves brutally torturing other species for no reason. Contention 2An entire contention about the ruthlessness of humans. Yet it involves no personal interaction by any other animal. So, you assert animal have done nothing no to deserve rrights, and human ruthlessness demands animals have right or they will be exploited. Contention 3Outlines categories for animals then specifies i sall argue for each category he lists. Pets-Provide happiness for heir owners, may have a chance of being abused(causing a life of fear and mistrust), and a chance of being killed for fun. Don't believe me? Here are some links:. http://www.nbcdfw.com...http://stopanimalabuse.blogspot.com...same case in following 2 links. http://www.nowpublic.com...http://abclocal.go.com...This clearly shows animals NEED rights or they will be constantly and bruttaly exploited, just for the pleasure of humans(as Con states)Pests- a form of necessary action, therefor i do not have to argue this. Domestic animals-A useless point. My opponents believes animals will have the 'right' to choose, but look to the rights I provided(which were not refuted) and denote this entire argument for domestic animals should be dropped since 1)it is still necessary action(nutrition), thus i do not have to refute this 2)Right that Con outlines is completely nonsensical. Wild Animals-"Laws should be made for their welfare but giving them rights will be absurd". Quite a contradicting statement. The opponent basically states we should outline their protections, but not acknowledging what outlines their protections. First, since my opponent agrees things should be done for their welfare, he then interprets that their welfare should always be preserved. Thus my opponent AGREES that animals have rights. Contention 4Another weak point, because if they cause harm, then it would be necessary action to harm such things as viruses and detrimental bacteria. And finally this recognizing that we have the ability to reduce animal suffering stems from recognizing that those animals have a claim on their life as well as preserving their life and safety. Thus concedes to the idea that animals have rights. Second RebuttalOn to his case. my opponent lists what I outline. But again, clearly denote that my opponent supports me with his statement, " Japanese abuse whales and over hunt the endangered blue whales. Many diary farms around USA treat domestic animals like Chicken and Cows are treated very badly. " This clearly denotes that my opponent agrees there are things human ought not do to animals and thus he agrees the rights should be recognized by a just society. Then my opponent lists five points which i will now refute: -"Humans beings are more complex and better than other non human animals. Thus they donot deserve to be given rights"So, since other animals are more simple and maybe even can't defend themselves as well as humans, they should not recieve rights to outline their protections? A very weak point the Con makes which can be matched to Hitler's idea that Jews had no rights, because they were inferior to the German race. Con should give a little more thought to this point. -"Rights" are not built for creatures that donot make a difference to their surroundings like humansI must digress. Animals are defined by that habitat, help refertilize our habitat so trees can grow so organisms have more oxygen, and only attack through self defense. Humans destroy habitats to ake their own, pollute, and murder senslessly. Unless my opponent wants he animals to cause destruction too, i stand animals must have rights. -It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure as in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Nutrition i agree(necessary use as stated in my case), but pleasure is another reason why they deserve rights. Otherwise they will continuously be exploited by humans and maybe even driven to a point endangerement. - Animals rights activist who are supposed to help non human animals gain "rights" arehypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Their actions are not influenced by animals, nor does it show malicous actions by animals, it just shows the cruelty of humanity and how it extends not only to animals, but humans too. So again i stand animals must have rights since they were not responsile for the actions of a human organization. - Last not the least point , The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. Wether they are related to us or not, they influence their enviroment and even help us and we return the favor through sensless killing. I must urge that animals require rights. Weighing Clearly, my opponents arguments were refuted while my case stands. In fact, Con only attacked my case in the second rebuttal (and not even my entire case), and i properly defended, which means all I provided remains standing. I am also winnin on logic since my opponent contradicts himself at some points. I also outline animal rights in my case as:Animal rights outlined by Respect, No exploitation, Allowed to procreate, No cruel acts, no killing for sport/no reason. My opponent on the other hand provides no outline of animal rights. Furthermore, I show how my stance is correct, show that my opponent RECOGNIZES THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS HUMANS SHOULD NOT DO TO ANIMALS, and in turn prove that my opponent as well as I recognize animals deserve some rights. . Finally, I am winning the BoP since i succesfully prove animals do require rights, while my opponent fails to uphold his.

To your earlier claims. There is such a thing as sexual deviance and abuse against animals in factory farming, the peta have seen this, and posted it http://www.peta.org... . They have been their on multiple occasions in different places and have seen this and witnessed the cruelness. I take in some of your arguments and agree to a point, however not speaking as a professional but speaking as a person, animals are living creatures, my quote Fully grown chickens screaming for help as chicks, this was written in an article in a well read newspaper. Investigators went to two different factory farms, one being partly ok, hay and small sticks on the floor with enough room to move, however the next was appalling, with what looked like fully grown chickens were actually baby chicks that were fattened and in pain. 23/24 hours a day lights are kept on in factory farms meaning the chickens are continuously eating, 3/4 of the chickens have ammonia burns, heart failure and deformed bones, with the others being DEAD, DEFORMED, UNABLE TO WALK OR IN THE MIST OF DYING. With FACTORY FARMING CAN EITHER BE OK, I WAS STATING THE FACT THAT ON A RARE OCCASION 1/58 FACTORY FARMS ARE REPORTED OK. PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND. WHY FACTORY FARMING SHOULD BE CHANGEDYes, with traditional methods of farming "The cost would increase by 40%" however this doesn't mean we have to use tradditional methods of farming, Factory Farming as it is today should be banned however it should be adapted for future use. CLEANLINESS Animals suffer from ammonia burns in factory farms due to laying and eating in their own faeces, They are given limited room, or in most cases no room to move. They are dragged by workers, on there burns and beaten with poles and canes. Cow Factory Farms Are also very bad for climate change. Worse than cows in an ordinary fields.ECONOMICSyes many people are given jobs however they are not fit to work with the animals. If you can give me any source to which workers treat the animals well then i will reconsider this part of debate however until then, you are being hypocritical and doing exactly what you stated "no sourcing of any kind". CHEAP FOOD Yes this is a solution to cheaper food, howvever if you think the average of £7 for a medium sized broiler chicken is cheap then im sure your mistaken. Finest Free range chickens cost an average of £7.89, and have been treated fairly and given space, organic chickens with an average of £8.20 for a medium chicken, I think you should reconsider that argument. CHICKEN FEED Chicken feed has contained inorganic arsenic increasing the risk of lung problems and many other problems. These chickens are fed to us and were increasing the risk of lung cancer. CANNIBALISM Chicken feed in factory farms can contain chicken! Disturbing as it may seem some feeders give chickens feed which can contain their own meat. CONCLUSIONFactory Farming is abusive, only around £1 cheaper than free range chickens of the same size, has in the past caused diseases and problems for consumers, These are only around a hundredth of the reasons to change factory farming my sources are at the bottom of this page. These animals are meant to be outside roaming free, not cooped up inside in small cages being killed. 1] http://www.peta.org... 2]http://factoryfarming.org.uk...3]http://www.peta.org.uk...4]http://www.google.co.uk...5]http://www.animalaid.org.uk...6]http://www.animalsuffering.com...7]http://www.acompassionateworld.org...8]https://secure.peta.org...9]http://www.youtube.com...

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...;

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


Question: Should Animals be Utilized for Scientific and Commercial Testing Purposes?

The use of animals for scientific and commercial testing should be permitted, considering the benefits of breeding programs that occur alongside, as evidenced by publications from reputable sources like 'Royal Society Publishing' by qualified experts. It's true that breeding programs are part of animal testing, but does every instance of animal testing involve breeding programs? And does every species tested yield positive outcomes? For instance, rats are exposed to infected blood to observe the effects. Is that fair treatment? (a) Is it true that the Tokay gecko is bred in all animal testing facilities? Then why is there a high demand for them? Why has the 'tokay' call I used to hear near my home stopped? (b) (a). http://t0.gstatic.com... (b). http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Moreover, the claim that animals in testing do not suffer from pain, distress, or death is inaccurate. Animal testing often involves cruelty, such as dripping chemicals into their eyes, injecting harmful substances, forcing them to inhale or ingest toxins, and subjecting them to maternal deprivation. Animals are also subjected to drug addiction, deafness, blindness, burns, staples, and viral infections. These practices are often exempt from anti-cruelty laws, and undercover investigations have revealed severe neglect and violations of animal welfare policies in labs and universities. The issue is negligence, where even if not intended, animals are killed due to carelessness in facilities that should be safe, clean, and cruelty-free. (c). http://www.downtoearth.org...

Furthermore, the primary cause of the dwindling tiger population is not animal testing but hunting for their skin, teeth, and other body parts. However, the demand for tiger bones for medicinal purposes, which stems from animal testing, inspires illegal activities. The example of the tokay gecko and Giggles illustrates the consequences of animal testing leading to high demand and illegal poaching, contributing to animal extinction. How can one claim that animal testing is safe and acceptable when such outcomes are prevalent? (c). http://www.downtoearth.org...

It is argued that there are no alternatives to animal testing, but this assertion lacks a reliable basis. Alternatives do exist, and animals are not the most accurate models for humans. (e) Cell culture, human tissue use, in vitro modular immune systems, and other methods are utilized in reputable laboratories, although they can be more expensive than animal testing. Animal testing does not contribute to population control; instead, it leads to species extinction. (e

Without specifying the "new solution" you suggest, we must assume that abolishing the practice of animal testing will either result in no testing for those products or testing on humans, at least for the time being. I will therefore argue that animal testing for medical research is worthwhile and more ethical than its abolition. Starting with your first point: "So why are they considered less valuable than humans?" -Instead of debating whether animal's experiences are equal to human experience, I will try to point out how human life is more valuable by assuming first that it isn't. If human life was equal or inferior to animal life, which is what you would logically conclude if it wasn't MORE valuable, then we would assume that animal lives would be worth more than a a lesser number of human lives. For example, if you were forced to choose between sacrificing the life of one person or of three people, you would choose the one person if you had no obligations to prefer one life over the others. So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision. "If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies." Despite the ability of humans to give informed consent, voluntary human testing cannot be a replacement for animal testing, especially for medical research. Drugs are tested on animal to ensure their safety or effectiveness in treating a particular disease. Very few, if any, people would volunteer for testing like this because of the risks involved to their health and even to their lives. Researchers would have to offer some sort of incentive, such as money. This would single out the economically disadvantaged for testing, another kind of discrimination, and also raise the costs of medical research and possibly the drugs themselves. Even without the negative consequences of recruiting volunteers in this manner, the testing itself would bring immeasurable harm to the participants. And finally: "I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated." The precise reason you would need to test out drugs is to observe effects that you were unable to predict. Advancements in medicine that allow us to predict negative side effects without testing, but we still perform testing for the "just in case." You would need to know absolutely everything to eliminate the need for testing, and until we can predict with absolute certainty, we will always need that "just in case."

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

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

your question was animals in general not zoo animals. I think you have asked the wrong question l as you argument now is just on zoo animals. I can agree that some zoo animals would be happier outside of the zoo but you should think of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 1) zoos rescue animals.that would not survive in the wilderness 2) zoos raise awareness and funds about endangered species and are one of the few communities that do an amazing job preserving the animals in the wilderness outside and inside the zoo. 3) zoos inspire children to save the animals. would you ever debate this had you not been taken to a zoo? zoos can really bang out the inner love for animals and people's careers to save animals was launched because of those caged animals. now I want to remind everyone that the question was all animals so my arguments outside of zoos still stand.

EXTENTIONAnimals have a right not to be harmed The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals. Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments. We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.REBUTTAL Propositoin's only argument was that there were some medical advancements because of animal testing.They've stated:Think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone.The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[2]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish.It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows.But why freaking stop there? Lets throw out some more discoveries from animal testing[3]. Breast Cancer? Animal research was crucial when we developed Herceptin and Tamoxifen, which help cure breast cancer. Leukemia? Testing on mice lead to the development of Gleevec, which is the first molecularly targeted drug against cancer, and we also use Gleevec to gastrointestinal stromal tumor (known as GIST) which was untreatable before it's development.Lung Cancer? Researching on mice is critical to understanding, preventing, and detecting lung cancer, as well as for developing new therapies for treating it. Heart Disease or Stroke? Everything from what foods to eat to minimze risk to the development of statins, a pill that helps control cholestoral and reduce risk for heart disease, come off of the back of animal studies.I could keep going, but I think I've made my point fairly clear: medical advances stop if we stop testing on animals.Responce: i. Animal testing isn't always the solution to these medical problems. There are various other factors needed to curing diseases. ii. There are alternative methods than to animal testing as instigated before.iii. Even if we accept the fact that animal testing helped in curing diseases, it doesn't mean that we have to stick to animal testing in the future, nor is there proof that animal testing will bring further advancements.iv. Proposition's most 'recent' example of animal testing used was back in 1990, meaning that there is not much significance in animal testing in the status quo. v. There is a major difference that my opponents is unable to understand: that there is a major difference from researching on animals and testing on animals. Animal testing implies the use of non-human animals in experiments.vi. Moreover, animals don't get human diseases, meaning that their logic is completely flawed anyways. This means that there is no use in testing on animals in the first place, as they are different and animal testing is proven to not work. In example, Artificially inducing stroke in animals does not recreate the complex physiology that causes the natural disease in humans, which may develop over decades. Animal stroke models don't usually include the underlying conditions, which contribute to human stroke. Artificially inducing in animals the underlying conditions that lead to human stroke does not replicate the processes that occur in humans.vii. In regards to physicology, animals aren't little humans.I will extend on my rebuttals/reconstruction later in my final speech.

I see you have the ability to quote texts on sociology and philosophy but you do not seem to have ever studied them. These are theories that have been put forth over the decades and centuries and anyone can have a theory. The problem with this is that many ideas are idiotic and contrary to what most people with a sense of moral responsibility and justice would consider ethical. Humans do not only have a social obligation to all humans, they have an obligation to every living thing on this planet. Every animal has a right to be here. If they did not, they would never have been here in the first place. Social contracts include responsibility to the earth itself and every living thing on this planet. No, I did not look up that theory, it is one that any humane, intelligent person would accept. If you had ever studied ethics you would understand that there are universal ethics. These are ideas that almost everyone on the planet would accept as being right. I am not a religious person so I am not basing my views on any religion. But, lets face it, if I went on youTube and proclaimed my parrot as the next savior because he talks at least 5 million people would convert to Parroticism. Animals have rights because they are living things. They feel love, they feel pain, they feel happiness, and depression. We have counted on animals for our very existence for centuries. Where would George Washington and the first U.S. Army have been without horses, let alone farmers, mail carriers, merchants, etc? I also have to point out that imperative research has been done using animals. I am a scientist, I don't participate in it but it has contributed to the health and welfare of mankind. You have no right to determine what species should have rights or not. You have borrowed your theories from people that have no other qualifications than that they once lived and someone put their ideas in a textbook or on the internet. One more thing to point out, serial killers usually agree with your ideas. In most cases the abuse of animals has been noted in the early life of a serial killer.

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

<> 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.

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!

All following arguments are rebuttals against Pro rebuttals Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights First of all your quote from "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, andyou 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.” I don’t understand this argument really, especially the part about using pig heart on humans. It doesn’t make sense. And also about (I quote from you) “Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. Rebuttal 2: Commercially Beneficial My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. But still as I have proved cloned foods costs about 10 times more than regular foods, and you have shown cloned foods are no different than regular foods, I see no reason for people to want to produce or buy cloned foods. He has even collapsed my evidence on “36% of the public will want it” argument, because now we all know zero percent of the public will have interest in it. So basically, it has no economic value as a food product. Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of Safety As I have stated on the refutation to my opponent’s rebuttal, cloned foods are not mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. So no one can guarantee it’s safety yet.


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

Animals Should Be Utilized for Scientific and Commercial Testing.
Certainly, the argument extends beyond mere ethics. All perspectives are valid, as we aim for a balanced conclusion that encompasses more than just the ethical dimension. Undoubtedly, ethics play a central role in the opposition to animal testing, as critics argue that it is morally wrong to use innocent creatures for the testing of drugs and substances. Nonetheless, let us consider the substantial contributions of animal testing: enhancing human health and well-being, improving the health and welfare of animals in various contexts, preserving endangered species, developing more humane pest control methods, and advancing biological science. Utilizing animals for scientific and commercial testing is justified for the following reasons:
1. Animal testing has led to life-saving breakthroughs: The California Biomedical Research Association confirms that nearly every medical advancement in the past century has stemmed from research involving animals. For instance, experiments with dogs paved the way for the discovery of insulin, a critical treatment for diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, significantly reduced the global incidence of the disease. Without animal research, the devastating effects of polio would persist, as noted by Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to advancements in treating various conditions, such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and others. It has also facilitated the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics.
2. Whole-body testing is indispensable: Although researchers strive to use non-animal models, animal testing remains essential. Conditions like blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in bacteria or tissue cultures. The complexity of living systems necessitates observation and testing in a living organism to understand diseases and evaluate treatments.
3. Animal testing benefits animals: The methods developed for human health have also improved the lives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines initially developed for humans are now used to treat animals. Animal research has helped develop vaccines for rabies and distemper in dogs and cats, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, and treatments for heartworm. It has also contributed to the preservation of endangered species, such as the California condor and tamarins in Brazil.
4. Animal research is strictly regulated: Animal testing is governed by the federal Animal Welfare Act since 1965, in addition to local and state laws. The act establishes minimum housing standards for research animals and mandates regular veterinary inspections. All research proposals must

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?

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

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

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.

"Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their best interests, regardless of whether they are “cute,” useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all. It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation."https://www.peta.org..."People who support animal rights recognise that all animals have an inherent worth – a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every being with a will to live has the right to live free from exploitation and suffering."https://www.peta.org.uk...Con is essentially saying that humans deserve more rights than a squirrel or a dog and is likely going to justify this by saying that humans, as a whole, contribute more (to the society that determines rights) than non-human animals do. What Con is failing to comprehend is that the ability to suffer is the key to understanding Animal Rights.If I can prove that animals can suffer to the same levels as humans can, especially in a physical sense (for almost all species) but even on an emotional level of suffering (for some species) then I can explain why, even if humans deserve more Rights, animals still deserve some.For this section, I'm purely going to be quoting. The reason is that I do not want to say anything that isn't concluded directly by a reliable source."The debate around animals’ capacity to experience pain and suffer raged in the 20th century, but as we developed a greater understanding of pain, and studied its impact on the aspects of animal life that we could measure, we veterinary surgeons, along with many behavioural and animal scientists, recognised the significant impact of untreated pain, and we now believe this experience causes them to suffer. For example, we know that animals and indeed birds with clinical signs of pain (limping) will choose to eat food containing pain-killing drugs (analgesics) over untreated food, and by measures of behaviour, they will improve. Similarly many studies in a range of domestic animals have indicated that animals who have had surgery but not had adequate pain relief demonstrate behaviours reflective of pain which are alleviated when they are treated with analgesics such as morphine. We also know that it is not just our dogs and cats that can suffer pain – there is an equally strong evidence base for the presence and negative impact of pain in sheep, cattle, pigs and horses among other species. But recognising pain in these different species is part of the complexity associated with animal pain. Managing it in animals that we rear for food and those that we keep as companions is equally challenging. Behavioural disturbances have long been recognised as potential indicators of the presence of pain in animals. However it is important to recognise that each species manifests its own sometimes unique pain-related behaviours or behavioural disturbances in different ways, often rooted in the evolutionary process, so prey species, for example, are less likely to “advertise” an increased vulnerability to predators. Dogs may become aggressive, or quiet, or may stop socialising with “their” humans and other dogs. Sheep, on the other hand, may appear largely the same when casually observed. Some expressions of pain however may be conserved. A recent paper suggested commonality in some features of facial expression during acute pain experiences in several animal species and humans. These findings and much other work are being incorporated into tools to evaluate animal pain, because in the words of Lord Kelvin, the great Glaswegian scientist behind the Kelvin temperature scale, said: “When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in number … you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be”. So in order to treat and manage pain effectively we must measure it. And there is a huge demand for these tools. The Glasgow Composite Pain Scale, a simple tool to measure acute pain in dogs and first published in 2007, has been translated into six languages. It is used in veterinary practices to measure pain to treat it effectively. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of new analgesic drugs that are being developed by animal health companies. Tools to measure the impact of chronic pain, such as osteoarthritis, on the quality of life of dogs are now available and are a significant advance in managing chronic conditions. There is now a global effort to raise awareness of pain in animals. Recently the World Small Animal Veterinary Association launched the Global Pain Council and published a treatisefor vets and animal keepers worldwide to promote pain recognition, measurement and treatment. Dogs may be man’s best friend, but for all those who work with, care for and enjoy the company of animals, understanding how their pain feels is essential to improving the quality of their lives."http://theconversation.com...https://www.independent.co.uk...(both sources had the same wording)"Mammals share the same nervous system, neurochemicals, perceptions, and emotions, all of which are integrated into the experience of pain, says Marc Bekoff, evolutionary biologist and author. Whether mammals feel pain like we do is unknown, Bekoff says—but that doesn’t mean they don’t experience it. (Read how your dog knows exactly what you’re saying.) There are some clues as to how animals—especially pets—communicate physical suffering. For instance, Dorothy Brown’s dog Foster has phantom limb pain in a leg that was amputated after being hit by a car. “He will be fast asleep and jump up and cry and look at where his leg used to be,” says Brown, who teaches surgery at the University of Pennsylvania’s Veterinary Hospital, where Foster was brought in for treatment. Human amputees also experience this phenomenon. Veterinarians also rely on observant owners to report behavioral changes that may indicate painful conditions, such as no longer jumping up on the couch or a loss of appetite, Brown adds. (See "Four Weird Ways Animals Sense the World.") Scientists have developed “grimace scales,” initially used for children, for mice, rabbits, rats, and horses. Each animal displays certain physical changes that are reliable indicators of pain; hurt rabbits, for instance, will stiffen their whiskers, narrow their eyes, and pin back their ears. So there's some science behind owners' and vets' assertion that "I can see it in their eyes and I can see it in their face,” Brown says."https://news.nationalgeographic.com...

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

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?

Thanks clashnboom! I hope this is an enjoyable debate. I accept the terms and conditions. I'll give a single argument (only one to preserve time and space) as to why Animals should not receive rights. Argument From Reciprocity The argument runs thusly: Premiss 1. Only those who respect the rights of others deserve rights. Premiss 2. Animals do not, and indeed, cannot, respect the rights of others. Premiss 3. Animals do not deserve rights. The argument is deductive, valid by modus tollens (P-->Q, -P, --> -Q). Defence of the premises Premiss 1. This assumption is central to the way we live our everyday moral lives - and indeed, run society and the criminal justice system. Think about murderers and paedophiles, who do not respect the rights of their victims. What do we do? We strip them of their rights, by putting them in jail, corporal punishment or other punitive means. In simple terms, we apply our ethics according to premiss one: we deny rights to those who deny it of others. This indeed appears to be a universal norm, across all societies. This is based on the principles of Scanlon's contractionalism, i.e., the idea that "morality is based on contract or agreement" [1]. Since animals cannot adhere to this contract, they deserve no moral treatment. This principle (contractionalism) is evident by the very fact that ethics is not an altruism: not everyone simply deserves ethical treatment for no cause - there must be a reason why one deserves to be treated morally. If we deny this, then ethics would be merely a brute fact, which makes little sense when one considers the relativism of ethical truths (hence this very debate). As a result, we must transcend individualistic theories of ethics. Indeed, for the sake of the argument, we need only to accept a weaker underlying principle that ethics is (a) an interaction involving two (or more) people, and (b) is a rational process - both hopefully rather evident: (a) because ethics is by definition the moral treatment of others, and (b) because ethics requires moral deliberation (e.g. deliberating whether or not to steal). Premiss 2. This premiss seems undebatable. Clearly, animals are not rational beings. Consequently, they cannot cognitively register the receipt of ethical rights. As Kant states: "Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves". [2] In other words, Kant draws upon a straightforward distinction between us and animals: we exist in an end of ourselves, owing to our rational and free actions. However, animals have neither rational nor free thought (i.e., higher consciousness). If this is the case, though, then they cannot possibly respect the rights of others as they have no comprehension of rights. Thus, lions care only for food when they tear apart a deer and have no guilty conscience. It is clear from their behaviour that animals do not act in a moral way for the sake of morality. Indeed, ethical truths necessarily require rational explication. Since animals cannot do this, one must reject the idea that animals can act ethically as an end of itself, and a fortiori, respect the rights of others. [3] Even animals such as dogs (or higher animals such as gorillas) do not recognise these rights - indeed, the way they act is simply in accordance to a stimulus-response and a Darwinian-esque survival instinct, with no rational choice in relation to moral behaviour (choice to do right or wrong is central to moral behaviour). If we respect animals, they accept it only as a benefit of survival - not on purely ethical principle, in stark contrast to humans. We should, therefore, never expect animals to respect principles of moral rights. They have no moral consciousness in the way that rational beings (i.e. humans) do. Premiss 3. A moral obligation to animals, therefore, is unnecessary. Morally, rights can be given only those who both a) comprehend rights and b) respect the rights of others. Since animals can do neither of these things, they do not deserve rights. The argument follows from the first two premises by modus tollens. Over to you, Con. Sources: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] Ibidem

I will debate against the resolve animal testing is good.Animal testing is not good but also wrong.Animal testing means using an animal for testing purpose, whether it is medical or science. You take a harmless animal away from its natural habitat and then force drugs or machine on it. After testing, the animals are then killed and is disposed. Many animals have been used and brutally disposed off in the progress.In addition, animal testing isn't reliable. Drugs' effects are varied from species to species. For example, aspirin is a very safe pain-killing drugs that has been used for many years by humans. However, aspirin is extremely toxic to cats and dogs and can cause possible deaths [1]. My third argument is that no matter how much testing we done on animals, we will eventually have to test it on human. Drugs that proves safe on animals can still have hidden side effects on human. The Food and Drug administration has determined 92% of the drugs that have proven safe and successfully tested on animals is considered ineffective or dangerous in human trials. [2][1]http://goo.gl...[2]http://goo.gl...

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