The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
RatofDoom2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

100 Debate Challenge 2: This House would ban animal testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 63899
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Wylted

Con

Full Topic

This House would ban animal testing

Definitions

Animal testing refers to all animal testing.

Rules1. Pro accepts the sole BOP2. No forfeits3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No semantics or trolling
RatofDoom2

Pro

The first point I wish to make is that animals should always be inferior to humans as we are, in this case, the dominant race. We have worked hard to make this planet have laws, care and most of the time, a happy nature.

Medicine that is needed for humans to survive is essential to be tested on animals. Without the testing, we may have the lack of treatment to cure diseases and viruses that slowly wipe out the entire population on this planet. Animals are so plentiful on this planet and just a few have to die to save potentially millions of human beings on this planet. Animals should be treated well when alive, but have to be sacrificed to help our race.

It is the same as eating meat. If you eat meat, you really should have no problem with animal testing. They are both the same thing. One for curing our diseases; one to stop us starving. They are the same.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

My opponent has mistakenly argued the con position, when in fact I am con. Therefore I extend his arguments and look forward to his rebuttals of his own points as well as some initial arguments from pro.

RatofDoom2

Pro

RatofDoom2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

My opponent messed up and posted my arguments for me. Once again I extend his arguments against himself.
RatofDoom2

Pro

RatofDoom2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Con

My opponent has argued my position and has not offered any rebuttals for the points he made. Vote me
RatofDoom2

Pro

RatofDoom2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
common sense dictates that I mean testing of products on animals not testing animals for diseases and stuff. WTF?
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
With that all-encompassing definition, this debate is like "Heads - I win, tails- you lose" for Con.
"All animal testing" would also include testing an injured dog for rabies, testing cows for the mad-cow-disease and testing chicken for salmonella. Or monkeys for ebola.
Nobody in their sane mind can argue against these tests. Because they are not the ones protesters go up against. Still: ALL animal testing.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm con they must prove animal testing should be banned. If they want to make that ridiculous argument they can, but it won't get them far. They're better off just sticking to the most obvious arguments.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
What's the extent of the testings? Due to your vagueness someone could go in and say that your unwinding (basically stripping a live being down for parts while they are conscieous and alive. They loose all of their being, but are still alive in said process just in a divided state) and win on the basis that your defending something horrible as that instead of drug testing and such.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
No I'm con, like it says under my name.
Posted by Dynasty2468 2 years ago
Dynasty2468
So you're for the animal testing?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WyltedRatofDoom2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited a majority of rounds, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments - Con. Pro presented arguments for the wrong side, which Con then decided to point out. With Pro failing to present any proper arguments, I must award these points to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
WyltedRatofDoom2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture