Debate Rounds (3)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for, "You are making a stupid point." Arguments to Pro because he said that the utilitarian cost of testing a new drug is typically outweighed by the benefits of that drug. Con has the burden of proof, and did not provide any moral basis by which humans should grant animals equal rights when it comes to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Even if we were to grant them equal rights, he did not demonstrate that the cost of testing new drugs outweigh their benefits. Pro argued it would be justified even if the guinea pigs were human.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.