The Instigator
alex_truett
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Animal Rights

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 5 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 284 times Debate No: 90065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

alex_truett

Pro

All animals have a right to life. They were born into this world having the right to have someone care for it like a new born baby. Helpless and unknowing of what this world is capable of. How this world can destroy a life. No one has the right to decide whether or not someone or something should live or die. I stand with the side of life and try to protect what I can because I love animals. I'm not saying everyone has to love animals, but not liking animals does not give the right to kill an animal. 150 to 200 species of plants, animals, or insects go extinct everyday due to the carelessness of humans.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Economic Benefits

Factory farms have many economic benefits, for example, each year they provide the US with a total of 700,000 jobs. [7] These jobs are mainly helping people in the rual comminity. Since the factory farms are very reliant on machinery this has caused the increase in other jobs in producing the machinerery of such equipment. [6]

In 2005, factory farming accounted for 40% of the Global meat production. Meaning that alone, the factory farming had helped support and feed over 2.8 billion people. [8]We also have to look at JS Mill's Utilitarianism. Even it states that humans are superior on the grounds that humans are able to expierence better level's of pleasure.

Contention 2: Utilitarianism of Animal Testing

For this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. I will concede to the fact that animals are Sentient beings, but something we should focus on is the Greatest number portion. Before we dive into that I would like to point out a key argument that Mill makes and that is humans have priority over animals concidereing that humans can expierence a greater amount of pleasure and a better potential in this case. [9]

Now as we begin here I have to prove that through Animal Testing we would be providing the Greatest Utility in this case and henceforth win the debate on these grounds, because if the ultamate utility isn't achieved then we will have more pain than pleasure and thus harming humanity which will ultamately lead to our downfall and depletion of human progress. First let's look at the benefits that these animal tests have provided humans. If we can look at the past 100 years we can see that almost all of the medical break throughs have actually came directly from Animal tests. [10] There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012. [13] There's also progress and come close to vaccines and treatments on a long chain of other illnesses it has helped with that I don't have time to go into detail with them all, but to list a few: Hep B, Hep C, polio, Brain Injuries, Breast Cancer, TB, Leukemia, Cardic Valve Subsitutes, and several others. [11][12]

Let's move on to animals and how they actually benefit from this. Now I would like to clarify to the voters here. I'm not the anti-PETA guy who thinks that we should put lipstick on a bunny to see if it makes it bullet proof, but more of a reasonable expierements over these vacines and such. First we have to look at some of the cures that actually came from testing on animals and the animal diseases that had vacines for them. There has been a countless list, but just to name a few: Rabbies, CPV, Feline Hep, Distemper, Antrax, and Feline Leukemia. [11] We can see that in this case countless millions upon millions of animals lives would have been lost if it wasn't for animal testing. As for the number of research subjects it is just over 26 million total. We consume more than 1800 more animals than test subjects. [14] We cannot deem this unethical without attacking eating meat amongst other things.

Now we can see that overal more humans and animals have been saved than those animals who have lost their lives and in current use. This is important when weighing this argument as we can see that this plan creates a net benefit of pleasure while my opponent's plan would be that of a net pain and shouldn't be ennacted as her position not only harms society and ends the golden age of medical research, but it kills humans of which we could have saved through animal research.

Sources in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
alex_truett

Pro

alex_truett forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 2
alex_truett

Pro

alex_truett forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 7 months ago
MaxLamperouge
Good debate so far.
Posted by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
Sources
6. ( https://en.wikipedia.org...)
7. (www.foodispower.org/factory_farm_workers.htm)
8. ( https://en.wikipedia.org...)
9. ( http://faculty.frostburg.edu...)
10. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
11. AnimalResearch.info, "Diseases & Research," animalresearch.info (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
12. Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing," huffingtonpost.co.uk, July 17, 2013
13. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
14. Tom Holder, "Animal Research Is an Ethical and Vital Tool to Fight Disease," blogs.law.harvard.edu, Jan. 14, 2013
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 7 months ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
alex_truettlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stayed in the debate while Pro forfeited the last two rounds. Spelling and grammar was the same. Con's very argument made several good points and and was given no rebuttals by Pro. Con was the only one who used any sources. Therfore, he wins.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
alex_truettlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 7 months ago
illegalcombat
alex_truettlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits 2/3 rounds, conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
alex_truettlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Peepette 7 months ago
Peepette
alex_truettlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts out with a decent opening statement, animals have a right to life, humans should not decide who lives or dies. Con makes a fine contention as well with stance on economic benefit and utilitarianism . Pro does not contest or rebut any of Cons statements via FFs. Conduct to Con for staying with the debate. S&G tied, no glaring errors by either party. Sources to Con due to use to affirm his contentions and validity.