Debate Rounds (4)
Thanks to con for accepting. Since he didn't really post a case of any kind, I'll just post my case and wait for his responses.
== Case ==
Before I begin, I want to be very specific about what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for animal testing in the development of medical vaccines or additional treatments to benefit both human lives and animal lives. I do not support, nor will I advocate for, the use of animal testing for things such as cosmetic purposes.
This one is simple enough: 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. 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 monkeys
1921 - 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.
Furthermore, the impact of animals in medical testing is incredible. The medical breakthroughs that have come as a result that have drastically improved the quality of life of both humans and animals. The road to a better life for both animals and humans is is through animal testing. Still explains:
== Conclusion ==
I've shown that animal testing has lead to amazing breakthroughs, and continues to provide us with ways to not only improve the lives of humans, but the lives of animals as well. Getting rid of animal testing would be silly.
== Sources ==
(1) - http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...
(2) - http://theconversation.com...
I will agree to the many things that animals have been test subjects for are 85% good. Yet then I wonder, what abuse those animals must have gone through. Dead animals must be used for organ transplants and a diseased or naturally dead or infected carcass I would hope not be used in a transplant. And the armadillo is not proven to treat leprosy. Insulin gets taken from the blood of animals.
Back to the Con
Before I begin, I want to point out that before my opponent made any kind of response, she said "I will agree to the many things that animals have been test subjects for are 85% good."
Here she's basically conceding to my impacts, short of expressing concern for the suffering of animals. This means you can extend out the list of cures and treatments that have been developed because of animal testing (the University of Minnesota evidence) as well as the Still evidence which is talking about how animal testing has led to the development of more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the FDA, as well as 111 USDA-approved veterinary vaccines and biologics that improve the health of animals. This means that no matter what I'm showing how animal testing is helping both humans and animals, which means that a) I have offense back toward affirming the resolution, while my opponent doesn't have any offense toward negating the resolution, and b) this evidence is showing how I'm working toward eliminating suffering in animals (I'll touch on this specifically in a second) through developing USDA-approved vaccines and medicines that we can use to improve their health. Affirming means that if animals are suffering from testing, that they won't be for long once we come out with the medicines required to end their suffering and return them to normal lives.
But let's go to this concept of suffering of the testing animals. There's a lot of problems with this argument.
To begin with, animals aren't even really suffering from experimentation. Still 2 continues:
But even if they are suffering, refer back to the Still 1 evidence showing how through animal testing I'm creating medicines and vaccines that we can use to improve the quality of life of animals. This means that while my opponent is just complaining about how animals are suffering under animal testing and proposes no way to end it, I'm actually working to end suffering of animals in the long-term.
But even if I wasn't working toward ending animal suffering, there's no inherent reason why animals have to suffer in the first place from testing. Even if some testing facilities today are pretty crappy places and treat animals awfully, there's absolutely no reason as to why this has to stay that way or why it means we have to get rid of animal testing altogether. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just make regulation of animal testing more harsh and crack down on testing facilities that violate animal protection laws.
But even if we couldn't minimize, or eliminate entirely, the suffering animals experience during testing, their suffering in the grand scheme of things is worth while. Not only does their suffering leading to things that improve the lives of humans, if not saving lives entirely, but it's also leading to the development of medicines that help animals as well. This means that even if she's winning on suffering, I outweigh.
== Conclusion ==
She pretty much concedes to the vast majority of my arguments, and her only concern on suffering is thuroughly refuted.
You also recited that the animal's suffering is worth it. You are therefore placing yourself in a position that states that human importance is greater than all animals that suffer to improve our lives. Kill many to better one? If the procedure does not work right, aren't you now hurting or potentially killing multiple lives now?
Even if you crack down on certain facilities that are treating poorly and making regulations more harsh among the testing groups, people will find some way to sneak past that. People are too smart these days, and most times don't use their wisdom for good reasons.
You state that you will improve the quality of life with some of the medicines and vaccines that you are creating, yet transplants are taken from animals and given to humans, leprosy betters only humans, and insulin is taken from animals to better humans.
TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.
acotaco forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.