The Instigator
theocatzop
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,049 times Debate No: 58592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

theocatzop

Pro

I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.

Acceptance first
Envisage

Con

I accept, best of luck Pro!

I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me.

I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.
Debate Round No. 1
theocatzop

Pro

First of all,I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate!

No,the debate is not only about ethics.All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side.Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances.


Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*:
  • Improving the health and well-being of people.
  • Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support.
  • Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals
  • Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment.
  • Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment.
  • Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species.


    I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because:

    1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments:

    The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals.[1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States.[2]


    2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system:
    Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research.Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research.However, animal testing remains a necessity.For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures.The living system is extremely complex.The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible.[1]

    3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing:
    The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved the
    lives of countless animals.More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are
    now used to
    treat animals.Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases
    such as rabies
    and distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has
    assisted in the
    development of treatments for heartworm.
    In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1].The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing.

    4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment:

    In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965.As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility.Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC).All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.[3]

    Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues."[7]

    5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing:

    A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential."[4]
    The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.

    6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress:

    People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish.We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal.[5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6]




    But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:

    This is something that almost of all us have questioned about.If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it?Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful.But the answer is not that simple.

    First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects.The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly.In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans.Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated.Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly.

    All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research.


    Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings.They cannot do that.Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people.Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous.If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials.



    "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV"

    Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6]



    SOURCES:
    *http://www.adelaide.edu.au...

    [1]http://ca-biomed.org...

    [2]http://www.khou.com...

    [3http://www.aphis.usda.gov...

    [4]http://www.nature.com...

    [5]http://speakingofresearch.com...;

    [6]http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

    [7]http://www.nature.com...
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

My case is mostly going to concentrate on the morality of the issue of animal testing. Virtually all arguments for and against animal testing are reducible to claims about morality and well-being. I take the position that they are both connected, and that the benefits if animal testing so not outweigh the negative effects that are resultant, and extended from the presuppositions of positive animal testing.

II. Plagiarism

I have never had somebody plagiarise against me like this in a debate before, and I am not sure how to react, but I think this warrants pointing out.

Almost the entirety of Pro's opening round is plagiarised, copy pasted verbatim, from existing websites. I have nothing against paraphrasing and referencing, but this is literal word-for-word and easily checkable with google.

Pro's sources:
1. http://animal-testing.procon.org...
2. http://ca-biomed.org...

And Pro's opening contentions:
1. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments - Copied from Source 1
2. There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system - Copied from Source 2
3. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing - Copied fro, Source 2
4. Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to... - Copied from Source 1
5. The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest... - Copied from Source 1
6. Relatively few animals are used in research... - Copied from Source 1
7. But why don't we use humans instead of animals? - Copied from Source 1

I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest.

With that out of the way, I expect Pro to construct and bring her own arguments forward for the next round, now I will present my own. For now I will present my own case and address Pro's arguments in my rebuttal rounds.

III. Harming sentient beings without consent is immoral

As humans, one of the most basic moral acts is to consider the well-being of other conscious beings. This is axiomatically true, and to deny this axiom leads to one's own self-destruction. With this in hand the argument becomes quite simple.

It is immoral to deliberately impinge on the well-being of a conscious being
Animal testing deliberately impinges in the well being of a conscious being
C. Animal testing is immoral

Note that this doesn't quite get us to the conclusion and also runs into issues of liberties and rights. But the argument remains valid and a Pro needs to contend this.

We can expand the issue further, that if we have a society, or culture that sees animal testing as moral, then we devalue an animal's rights & liberties. We essentially deprioritize an animal's well-being over out fellow species'.

However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. I would argue that it is within our capabilities now to generally have a say on what the state of well-being of animals are, given the research on depression, love, pain, and even addition have all come up with positive results.[1]

Therefore, Pro needs to content there is a rational and justifiable explanation as to why an animal's well-being should not be prioritised as highly as a human's well-being, given that we know they have comparable capabilities of pain and suffering, and will also evidently value their own well-being.

IV. Knock-On effects

Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?

Well, I would like to let Pro's own charts speak on my behalf, billions of chickens are slaughtered every year for food, along with millions in other livestock. Most of which are born and bred in captivity in conditions optimised for profit (and hence human well-being) at the expense of animals.

An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture. All things considered, very uncharitable consequences would appear insignificant to us and place most of society in ignorance of what is occurring behind the scenes.

Sound familiar? Yes, this is real.

V. Alternative solutions/Perspective

Medical research had made significant advancements, and hence in vivo testing in animals is far less 'necessary' then it once was. While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today.[2]

In vitro testing can go a long way to determining efficacy, toxicity and putative pharmacokinetics of a new drug, and for drug trials, human trials are inevitably necessary anyway. A drug that had passed through phase IV. trials (and this is viable for market) has been tested on hundreds of humans anyway.

Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?

The difference between trialling in humans and on animals is that humans are capable of giving consent, and accepting the discomfort, and risks involved in testing. Moreover they are more viable for incentives, for undergoing the risks and inconvenience of trials, which gives a positive moral 'payback'. Animals in the other hand, simply do not have a choice in the matter, they are bred and forced to undergo testing against their wishes, much like our livestock and bred and slaughtered against their wishes.

VI. Cosmetics/Medicines

All of what I have said so far is directed at pharmaceutical testing, but the resolution also encompasses cosmetics and food testing. The same reasoning provided so far in this debate applies to cosmetics testing, except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests. There simply isn't a moral reason to perform cosmetic & food testing on animals.

It is Pro's burden to demonstrate this to be false.

VII. Conclusion

I am going to cut this round short, as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. Pease provide your arguments in the next round so I may provide a cogent rebuttal

VIII. References
1. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...
2. http://www.neavs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
theocatzop

Pro

OK, before I start rebuttling Con's arguments I have to make something clear! :


I knew it would happen!! Firstly, do you think I am so naive that I would not think that you would found the website? It's the number 1 result when you google "animal testing pros and cons"and "animal testing cons", the number 2 result when you google "animal testing pros", and the number 8 result when you google"animal testing advantages". It was almost impossible for someone to mke a good research without visiting this site! This is why I gave you the sources!.. Every copied sentence is attached with the link of the site where it was first published! Since, I give the links and admit that these sentences have not been created by me I have no reason to paraphraze them!


Secondly, I don't understand why this was such a great deal for you that you could not rebuttle at least one of the arguments I posted.

Here are some sites that mention the debate rules- nowhere says that participants must come up with their own arguments.

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw...
http://www.entsoc.org...


Do you know why? Because the main purpose of debating is to defend your side well in order to persuade the audience!



"I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest."


In the first place, it IS fair and honest! A debater's arguments should not be prepared based on his/her opponent's level of knowledge. It was not my indebtedness to make arguments easy enough for you but it was you who had to search and post sophisticated ones.


Moreover, NO! we would not be left with a non-debte. Contrary, it woud be a very interesting debate! We would both have to rebuttle some sophisticted arguments instead of ordinary ones and it would be great! It would be one of those constructive debates that could help people define their position and gain some knowledge!

"I am going to cut this round short as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. "


Really? You had more arguments but you didn't post them because you waited for me to post my "genuine" arguments? And when did you expect to post them? In your round 3?


Now, about the "genuine" arguments:


A debater should collect as many arguments as he/she can in order to defend his/her side! It is impossible to base a whole debate on someone's arguments! Before starting a debate, we all do some research! There no one who uses only his/her own arguments. You cannot ask me not to search and collect arguments and evidence, so I suppose that you want me to paraphraze them. BUT:


1) An argument is yours when you are the first to think about it or at least you have come up with it without having heard or read it somewhere.. You cannot claim that an argument is your just because you have paraphrazed it. So, almost all of us use arguments that someone else has though about. And that's what we have to do in order to form an opinion! You cannot define your position in a topic by taking into consideration only your genuine arguments.


2) Given that I have paraphrazed the whole text.. So what? Does anything change? The main idea would remain the same! The only difference would be that I would may have done some mistakes. There are things that only specialized people know and I would not be sure if the paraphrazed text would be correct. Sometimes, a word plays an important role in a text and it could also change the whole meaning. So, since I have given you the sources, why should I have to risk it?


So, there was no reason for you to ignore the arguments, let alone to ask me to paraphraze them. If you want to rebuttle something, rebuttle these arguments! Unfortunately, I will not have the chance to rebuttle your rebuttles.


And finally, NO! I have not voided my entire previous round by plagiarising. This is wrong! If you had spent a little time to read and compare the 2 texts, maybe you wouldn't have said that! I have done much research and work in order for my round to be completed. I've added and removed many things..

examples:

what animal testing offers

the image (found it while checking out a source that the website used too.)

"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine (source 6..Sorry, but I had not characters available)


The quote at the end

Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year


and many more things have been added.


Now let's start with the rebuttals:


"However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. "


As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! That we recognize animals' rights and we try to prevent them from suffering! Oh, yeah! I forgot..you have ignored my whole round 2 for some reason..


"Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?'


I have to repeat things..Oh gosh! OK, let's get started:


We don't grant ourselves at the expense of animals. We just use animals whenever we cannot do something else.. I'm sorry but the only way to save from the HIV and the cancer or save animals from certain diseases we HAVE to use a few animals. Thanks to animal research we are where we are now and a lot of other species have not been extinct. We cannot stop using animals unless we find an alternative way to test drugs.


"An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture."


I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct.



If animals were in our shoes, they would do the same. This is how nature works! I also mentioned that :

"Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK"


This shows that animals kill each other without being menaced. The fact that we're being menaced now proves that in order for some species to become powerful so that they will not be extinct, they have to harm some other species.


I never said that we have to torture animals because we are more powerful, but when we're being menaced, we have to find a way to protect ourselves. Please note that we try to harm animals as little as possible despite the fact that we're in danger.


" While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today"


No, it is. I made a whole paragraph about why animals are necessary. Many diseases that menace our species today cannot be cured by using only alternative research methods. The tretments cannot be found so easilly. They need years of testing and examination. So, yeah, this argument is still appicable.


"Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?"


Go to the last paragraph " But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:" There are a lot of things that humans cannot offer.


"except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests"


Really? And your well-being? I have proved that animal testing benefits both people and animals. Thanks to medical research many animals have not been extinct. We have a lot of laws to protect them. We try to avoid using animals. What else can we do? Unless we find an alternative method we HAVE to use animals. If you have sth better to propose, do it. We can not quit medical research as we have to find treatments quickly if we don't want to die.


Now, about morality:


As Con has based all of her arguments on morality, I guess that she is a conscious person who stresses the importance of taking moral values into consideration.

To start with, I have to clarify that morality is subjective and every person has differerent moral values. So, you cannot ask me to demonstrate animal testing to be immoral as I can simply answer that "For, me it is moral as I think that we have to use our power against other species" for instance.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

Furthermore, we are not responsible only for our acts but also for our omissions. That means that we have to take into consideration the consequences of conducting animal testing and those of quiting animal testing. Which is more immoral? To use a few animals in order to find a way to face some viruses or to let many people and animals die which can lead to the extinction of many species while we can avoid it?



















































Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Plagiarism

I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited.

One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation.

I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical.

II. Burden of Proof

Please note this debate affirms two things:

1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes
2. Animal testing for commercial purposes

Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible.

So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not).

III. Animal Rights

This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious.

That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far:

1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights
2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals
3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing

The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis.

This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting.

Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading.

"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights.
Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste!"

But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable.

Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement:

"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. "

A few points:
1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct
2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd.

Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a "tu torque fallacy", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'.

Of course not!

Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle.

This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far.

Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points:

Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable
The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring.

Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, I have affirmed two things:
Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible
Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral

As such I hold that the resolution is negated. I both thank the voters for reading and Pro for participating and for some interesting points on animal welfare, and I wish her best of luck in future debates
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
This debate's next on my list, so I'll have a vote up before the time period's finished for sure.
Posted by theocatzop 3 years ago
theocatzop
Haha! Thanks:).. Best of luck,too:) I didn't write it because I had no more characters available :P.. I'm sure that this is gonna be a veryyy interesting debate!!
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
Holy Sh*t!

Excellent first round Pro, I am glad I accepted this debate now :-).
Posted by Jelera 3 years ago
Jelera
Recently I came across information stating that the more advances in science we make, the more clear it's becoming that animals aren't as brainless as we humans have always believed. Animal testing is just cruel. Testing on any creature with the ability to feel, even if they don't have a human's capacity of thought, is just nasty and such a human thing to do, which is the reason animals are better than humans.
Posted by Carpe_Diem 3 years ago
Carpe_Diem
I saw them put lipstick on a rabbit for "testing"
Posted by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
Humans should be used instead. . .
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
I accept, best of luck Pro!

I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
theocatzopEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: even completely ignoring the plagiarism, Envisage dealt out superior arguments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
theocatzopEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct , Arguments, Sources - Con. Plagiarism is never acceptable conduct in any debate setting, nor is it appropriate to argue that plagerism is allowed because no-one's arguments are genuinely their own. Ridiculous. As YYW pointed out, Sources are also given to Con due to Pro's horrible mis-use of hers. On the other side, Con never plagiarized - and formed his own arguments due to his research and given knowledge on the topic at hand, while also citing his sources accordingly without obvious plagerism. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
theocatzopEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: *sigh* This came off as just plain lazy from Pro. Normally, I'd take the time to read even something plagarized like this, but when the vast majority of her argument is copy-pasted from two site, I'm left with little option. This isn't supposed to be a debate between Con and animal-testing.procon.org. If you took your arguments from the site and paraphrased them, that would have been enough. Hell, that link didn't even appear in your R2 post, though you fessed up to it in R3. It's just very disappointing, because there is a bevy of good points out there, and to choose to post these as you have is just flagrantly missing the basis of why we engage in this activity. I don't doubt that you had no malicious intentions, but whatever you intentions may have been, the outcome was obviously unreasonable. Thus, as I count these arguments as essentially nil, I vote arguments to Con. Conduct and sources also go to Con for the same reason.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
theocatzopEnvisageTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and source points to CON for PRO's unethical misuse of source material. This is a normative issue, so the burden of proof is split such that PRO has the full burden to affirm the resolution and CON has the full burden to negate it. Many of PRO's arguments were not her own, and as is often the case when people borrow other people's thoughts, PRO could not see them through in the debate. Her theory arguments were insufficient to vindicate what appeared to be plagiarism. PRO argues that animal testing has led to good things, that there are no alternatives, that animals themselves benefit and that animals are sufficiently protected from abuse by regulation and norms. With little difficulty, CON dismantled all of these by arguing that animal testing was indefensible, unnecessary and immoral. He also provided alternatives to animal testing, which would be more ethical, like human testing. A very clear CON win.