Animals should have the right to life and liberty
Debate Rounds (4)
Animals will be defined as any species that is part of the Kingdom of Animalia, except homo sapiens.
Liberty will be defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
This debate assumes humans have these rights, but may lose them if they violate another person's.
Pro cannot introduce any new arguments in the final round, as Con has no chance to rebut them.
Historically and today, animal testing has allowed humans to advance medicine for both humans and animals.
There have been many diseases that humans suffered from, that were cured due to animal testing. Among many of the contributions animal testing has brought to the world are vaccines for diphtheria, typhus, whooping cough, smallpox, tetanu, and polio; as well as bringing antibiotics, modern anaesthetics, and treatment of childhood leukaemia. (1 & 2) Even recently, animal testing has found a new treatment for diabetes and progeria. (1) Animal testing has also brought up closer to a cure or allowed better treatment for multiple forms of cancer, HIV & AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease among many other diseases. (3)
The reasons animals have and are used in medical research is because before a treatment can be used by humans, it needs to be found to be safe and effective. (4) Although animals are different from humans, many have very similar DNAs. (5) Also, many animals have relatively short lifespans and are easy to run controlled experiments upon in laboratories, which can lead to very effective testing. (5) Although there are many alternatives to animal testing, there are too many tests that simply require the use of animals. Living organisms are too complex to be able to effectively test the results of certain medicines without animals. (5)
Therefore, if animals are not tested upon medical breakthroughs will not be able to occur as fast as they could otherwise. This would lead to longer periods of people dying and suffering from some diseases.
However, animal testing doesn't only benefit humans, but also animals. Many of the cures that were used to cure humans of diseases were then modified to cure certain animals. (6) In fact, some medicine was developed specifically for animals such as vaccines for rabies, canine parvovirus, distemper, and feline leukemia virus. (6) Due to this, animals in pets and homes are living longer lives. (6) Animal testing has also allowed many endangered species to be saved. (6) Without animal testing, many animals will die of diseases they wouldn't otherwise die from.
In order for animals to have rights a full vegan diet is required. However, a vegan diet can potentially be dangerous and unrealistic.
Although dangerous in high amounts, saturated fats are needed for a healthy diet. (7) The primary way vegan's can get saturated fat are from coconut oil and palm oil. However, the palm oil industry harms animal rights. Current levels of demand for palm oil has led to mass deforestation in certain areas. (8) Deforestation leads to animals being injured, killed, or otherwise displaced. For example, in the past two decades over 50,000 orangutans have died due to deforestation for palm oil. (8) That leaves coconut oil, but it is unrealistic to expect the world to get its saturated fat from only coconut oil. Many times it isn't convenient to purchase in one's area. (9)
There are also many other nutrients which a natural vegan diet lacks such as n-3 polyunsaturated fat, vitamin D, iron, vitamin B-12, and zinc. (10) One way some vegans get these is through fortified food, but that is not available in all areas. (10) I'll focus on vitamin D, which can be gained from sunlight, animal products, supplements, or fortified food. As already discussed fortified food isn't available in all areas. The benefits on receives from vitamin D supplements is still debated though. (11) That leaves sunlight, but some people do not get many opportunities to go outside due to their job or other reasons. In fact, many areas of the world don't get a lot of sunlight. (12):
For these reasons, many people are vitamin D efficient already, specifically in Northern latitudes, with most people consuming animal products. (13) It could only get worse if everyone had to adapt a vegan diet. It also gets worse in the Fall and Winter when the amount of sunlight in areas is at its lowest. (13)
Another problem with a vegan diet's idea of not killing animals would be that soil requires nutrients. The most efficient, natural, and realistic way for these to be attained is from bone meal, blood, and ash. (14) Although synthetic fertizliers are made by fossil fuels, fossil fuels are unrenewable and therefore will eventually run out. (14) Not to mention, the environmental dangers of burning fossil fuels, which can harm all life in general. Organic fertilizer also violates animal rights, as they often include products made from slaughtering animals. (15) If demand for plant produced foods increased, then arable land would need to be farmed more so, which would lead to more fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health being used. (16) Also, the use of grazing in Australia. is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent. (16)
Moreover, although, walnuts, seeds, and flaxseed oil all have omega-3 they have ALA. (17) Omega-3 experts recommend that adults should consume 500mg of EPA/DHA a day, which cannot be attained from any of the foods listed above. (18) Although ALA can be converted to EPA and DHA, it was found to be unreliable and restrictive way of attaining them (DHA especially). (19) By the way, omega-3 supplements are dangerous. Studies found that the majority of omega-3 supplements are oxidized. (20) Oxidized omega-3 creates a chain reaction with other PUFAs that someone's ate and make them toxic. (21)
C3-Animals are Profitable
Many activities and products that require animal deaths, are profitable and give jobs to millions of people. For example, on average a hunter was found to spend $1,896 per year on hunting. Also, since people are willing to pay more for leather clothing it puts more money public spending through sales tax and it puts more money in the pockets of workers, to allow them to live a more comfortable life.
C4-Humans rely on Animals
Humans rely on animals for certain things. For example, fireman use dogs to smell for smoke. A dog would never work for the fire department if it had liberty, but smoke detecting dogs can lead to many lives (both human and animal) and property being saved.
C5-Animals don't respect other species' rights
Omnivorous and carnivorous animals kill other animals (and humans) for food. For example, there is absolutely no way a lion can survive without eating meat, which requires an animal or human to be killed. Animals cannot help themselves from murdering since they are unable to have morals to say that it is wrong to kill. Many animals such as deer which don't even eat meat, still kill animals and humans. (22) For this reason, animals cannot be given rights because they follow instinct, and their instinct requires them to commit violate other species' rights.
UNpeacekeeper forfeited this round.
UNpeacekeeper forfeited this round.
UNpeacekeeper forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited the majority of the debate except Round 1, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. | S&G: Neither side made any major grammatical or spelling errors. Tie. | Arguments: Pro did not attempt to fulfill their part of the shared BOP, and their forfeiture stopped them from presenting any arguments. Con managed to construct a strong negative case, on the basis of animal testing, a vegan diet, human reliance, profitability, and respecting of rights. | Sources: Con used the sole sources in the debate, which were primarily reliable websites. | 6 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.