The Instigator
Doritosguy93
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Animal Testing Is Inherently Inhumane

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Cliff.Stamp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,647 times Debate No: 17340
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Doritosguy93

Pro

This debate is about whether or not animal testing is inhumane. I believe it is inhumane.

Rules: Standard rules for a debate (no vulgarity etc.) First round is for acceptance only. Second round is for arguments, and third round is for rebuttals/closing arguments

Definitions: Inhumane (from dictionary.com): lacking kindness or compassion
Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in experiments
Debate Round No. 1
Doritosguy93

Pro

Clearly this topic is much murkier than it appeared to me at first, and I'm not in a position to debate it at this point. I forfeit and I will research both sides of the debate and remake this topic.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 2
Doritosguy93

Pro

As I've said, I forfeit
Cliff.Stamp

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jat93 5 years ago
jat93
doritosguy, this site's got some pretty intellectual and top notch debaters, so if you want to learn this is definitely the place to be
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, Doritosguy93, let's hope you continue to strive. After all, there is enough time in an entire life to improve...
Posted by Doritosguy93 5 years ago
Doritosguy93
Yeah, I'm going to keep trying and hopefully get better.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Doritosguy93, it's all right. A mistake and a loss at least results in a victory: the experience of learning from your mistakes.
Posted by Doritosguy93 5 years ago
Doritosguy93
I didn't realize this topic was so complex. Or maybe I'm just not meant to debate. I don't know. I'll work on it.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yes, you would have to make a claim of rights through some basis, defend that basis and then how you derive the claim of rights. to simplify the debate you would do something like "given X animal testing is inhumane". X is principle which is used to justify the claim. This keeps the argument on animal testing and prevents someone from making a meta or normative position and keeps it in applied ethics.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I cannot assert that it is truly inhumane or not. Again, rights are ascribed, but what rights are being ascribed are still contested. And, I am not in a position to truly specify whatever right is being ascribed.

I guess Pro does not a bit work on his debating skills as well. It's nice to see a kindred spirit now and then...
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"If we adopt Cody's idea, that rights are assigned, we could probably state as well that rights are nonexistent and therefore, since it is not inherent, it would be violated by that treatment itself. "

Note if you want to get creative the OP doesn't define experiment either so for example I am currently experimenting with a new dog trying to find a food that it digests well. I gradually mix in new foods, track the dogs activity and stool (loose stool is a problem with a lot of puppies) and additives like pumpkin to see how much of what makes him happiest, active and regular. Now would you assert that is inhumane?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I see...Well, once again, you have much greater insight into these topics, Cliff. I do conceed that the term "animal" is too vague, in fact, we cannot be sure if all rights can be applied to different species with vastly different characteristics. That would save much time and argument.

If we adopt Cody's idea, that rights are assigned, we could probably state as well that rights are nonexistent and therefore, since it is not inherent, it would be violated by that treatment itself. And your point is correct: since rights are assigned, it is not known if there truly is a right to this treatment. We can assign the right, but it is meaningless as it is inherent.

And once again, you're correct about how the word 'humane' here is too vague. Pro makes too vague of a statement for humane. There is no criteria for "kind" behavior and treatment. But it would be interesting to see how Pro would defend his resolution.

It's good to read and actively participate in other debates.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yes, though the simplest way to attack it would be to argue taking advantage of the very broad nature of the term animal. This is a kingdom of the eukaryotes and it includes very simple things like flatworms, and of course the very popular biology gene experimental tool, the fruit fly. It also includes things like sponges and the trichoplax which is a tiny animal less than a mm in size that is so simple it has no organs, no internal structure, etc. .

But yes you could attack from a normative stance from something like it isn't inhumane to you and thus you can not assert in general it is inhumane. You could also get creative and take a meta stance that nothing can be asserted to be inhumane as no living thing can make an inherent right to a particular treatment. To be more rigorous the resolution should have clarified what type of animal and the normative basis for judging what is humane.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
Doritosguy93Cliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: sad.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Doritosguy93Cliff.StampTied
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: Forfeit.