The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ban vaccines

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 81909
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I Pro will argue for the topic
Con against the topic

Ban "

: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done

: to forbid(someone) from doing or being part of something" Merriam-webster

Vaccine

"

any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production."

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

SnaxAttack

Con

I accept the debate, and am arguing on why vaccines should not be banned.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

I will argue that vaccines should be banned on the grounds of animal suffering, alternatives to vaccines, and that there is sufficient doubt vaccines' safety and effectiveness.

I. Scientifically proving animal's sentience and ability to suffer.
II. Proving animal suffering in relation to vaccines
III. Showing how purchasing vaccines fuels the vaccine industry
IV. Alternatives to vaccines
V. Doubts about vaccines safety
VI. Doubts about vaccines effectiveness
VII. Sources

I. Scientifically proving animal's sentience and ability to suffer

Suffer "

: to experience pain, illness, or injury

: to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage)

: to become worse because of being badly affected by something
" merriam-webster.com [1]

"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [2]
"Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to 'feel another's pain' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found. " telegraph.co.uk [3]

"But it turns out that mother hens are such attentive, caring parents that they "feel" their chicks" pain.

In experiments, female chickens showed clear signs of anxiety and upset when their young were in distress." David Derbyshire for MailOnline [4]

"Q: Can chickens and turkeys feel pain?

A: Absolutely. It is indisputable that poultry are capable of feeling pain. All poultry species are sentient vertebrates and all the available evidence shows that they have a very similar range of feelings as mammalian species. Poultry can suffer by feeling pain, fear and stress. " upc-online.org [5]

At this point there should be no doubt that animals have the capacity to suffer.

II. Proving animal suffering in relation to vaccines

""The egg-based production process begins with CDC or another Influenza Collaborating Center providing private sector manufacturers with vaccine viruses grown in eggs per current FDA regulatory requirements. These vaccine viruses are then injected into fertilized hen"s eggs and incubated for several days to allow the viruses to replicate." CDC [6]

For a fertilized egg to exist, a hen and rooster must exist at some point.

"The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year." rspca.org.uk [7]

"What animals experience

The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate: " rspca.org.uk [7]

"Animals are sometimes used in the testing of drugs, vaccines and other biologics, and medical devices, mainly to determine the safety of the medical product." fda.gov [8]

"How many animals are killed in animal testing in the US?

Around 10 million a year." numberof.net [9]

"Hens used for egg production come from hatcheries, where male chicks (none of which can lay eggs) are killed immediately after hatching. Each year, hundreds of millions of these vulnerable beings are suffocated or ground up alive to produce fertilizer or feed." Humanemyth.org [10]

"Vaccine testing in particular consumes an estimated 2.5 million animals every year because vaccines are often produced by weakening, inactivating, or detoxifying a virulent microorganism or toxin. Each batch of the finished product is then tested on animals, causing them pain, suffering, and death." [11]

At this point it should be absolutely clear that vaccine testing and production is related to the suffering of animals.

III. Showing how purchasing vaccines fuels the vaccine industry

This is pure economics. If there was no demand, supply would swiftly drop. Vaccine research and animal testing would quickly come to a halt. That being said, if everyone stopped buying vaccines the animal suffering from vaccines would be halted.

IV. Alternatives to vaccines

Humans as a species have endured for a long time without vaccines. Just as we have manged to survive without many technological advances. Cell phones, DvD players, etc. This begs the question, how important are vaccines? Well I'm sure Con will come up with x number of people dying according to this and that authority. Yet, can we really be sure those people would have died?

Vaccines have caused us to become complacent. There is alternatives that involve less suffering to animals. Why resort to causing cruelty to another sentient being when you haven't first exhausted the alternatives?

"Nicotine, which is one of the main constituents of cigarette smoke, suppresses the immune system" Nat Rev Immunol. 2002 May;2(5):372-7. [12]

"Moreover, a close link between specific immune activation and atherosclerosis has been well established, suggesting that fat can directly trigger immune responses. This review discusses the role of fat as "a matter of disturbance for the immune system" with a focus on hepatic steatosis."

"All these factors indicate that obesity exerts negative effects upon the immune system." Nutr Hosp. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):319-24. [13]

"Obesity is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for a number of benign and malignant gastrointestinal conditions. However, literature on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is sparse and ambiguous. There is compelling evidence that both overnutrition and undernutrition negatively interfere with the immune system" World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14; 16(38): 4762"4772. Published online 2010 Oct 14. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i38.4762 [14]

It is clear to me that one can bolster his/her immune system by simply not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight.

V. Doubts about vaccines safety

There has been plenty of doubts about vaccines' safety. "Severe Problems

More serious problems have been reported by about 1 person in 100, within 6 months of vaccination. These problems included:

blood in the urine or stool
pneumonia
inflammation of the stomach or intestines
" [15]

"Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism" [16]

VI. Doubts about vaccines effectiveness

Akhenaten has made a very thoughtful case against the germ theory and vaccines "Germ theory advocates never state what the real cause of a disease is. This is a common omission of germ theory advocates. Germs don't appear unless there is a cause for them to appear." [17]

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.upc-online.org...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.rspca.org.uk...
http://www.fda.gov...
http://www.numberof.net...
http://humanemyth.org...
http://www.peta.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.debate.org...
SnaxAttack

Con

To begin my argument, I like to first Rebuttal some points about my opponents argument of why vaccines shouldn't be banned.

I. Life of humans is far superior than animals
II. Vaccine Industry Economic Benefits
III. Vaccines help humans

I Life of humans is far superior than animals
In my opponents opening argument of section I, he argues that animals, specifically chickens, suffer pain. Can they? I will agree that they can suffer pain, but my opponent fails to show on how this relates to vaccines. It doesn't because quoted by his sources ""Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to 'feel another's pain' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found". How does this relate to the usage of vaccines?

However, he later on provides the reason on how this relates to vaccinations where my opponent claims that chickens suffer from vaccinations. In reality, they don't knowing from personal eperience as well facts to support my claim that chickens don't suffer from vaccinations. According to "The Chicken Vet" (1) "Vaccination is commonly used in commercial poultry and increasingly in backyard birds to control disease. Vaccines mimic natural infection, allowing the birds to build up immunity to the disease without any of the harmful effects. This way you can prevent your birds getting the disease". Without this vaccination, flocks of chickens would die and recieve diseases which is much worse than a simple shot. As well as that disease can potentially spread putting humans lives at risk. Possible diseases that can potentially spread if not vaccinated include: Pox, Avian Flu, and so much more (2).

Then my opponent argues that any animal suffers from vaccinations. This is false for many reasons because animals actually benefit from vaccinations than what my opponent claims. I ask my opponent how do animals suffer? If the suffering is by giving them an injection, then that isn't truly suffering. Suffering would be long term effect of negativity, and animals do not feel that pain for that long. According to "National Office of Animal Health" (3), "Vaccination also reduces the amount of pharmaceutical treatments (such as antibiotics) used to control established diseases and, in many instances, has prevented long term suffering and death". They protect the animals from multiple diseases (3), and without that vaccination they would suffer more than just taking a simple shot. Like this graph (4):

graph showing 95% of animals immune at 3 years
In the graph, it is seen that animals become more immune to these diseases with a vaccination, than not recieving one at all.

Also, the percentage of animals with one of the common diseases rabies. "In the U.S., rabies represents a serious threat to the health of people and animals. Every year, it is estimated that 40,000 persons receive a rabies prevention treatment called post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) due to a potential exposure to rabies" (5). The solution, vaccinate your animals in order to help them live longer as well as protect your own family.

II Vaccine Industry Economic Benefits
Not only do vaccinations promote safety in health for children and adults, vaccinations also support the economy. According to World Health Organization (WHO) (6), it states: "The potential benefits of expanded vaccine coverage are evident among the following five emerging economies: Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa – often referred to as BRICS. These countries have seen high economic growth in recent years – expanding their capacity to produce, procure and provide health care". As well as the market for vaccinations is about at the same rate as the marijuana tax revenue given in the chart (7):


As it is seen, the market is growing for this and if we deny it, it will end in tragedy.

In my opponents argument for Section III, he quotes that if vaccines are no longer demanded animal suffering would drop. Where is your evidence on that? There is no evidence that he provided, and neglects the fact on how much money is made for vaccination use. And in my opponents argument for Section IV, he argues that people have endured a long time without vaccines. I will agree that this is true, however we shouldn't ban vaccines just because theres a potential that they are immune. There are certain diseases still existing today, and the only way to help cure them are vaccinations. One example is polio, "By 2002, the incurable and deadly disease of polio had also been eradicated from much of the world. This included the UK, the rest of Europe, the western Pacific and the Americans because of vaccinations" (8). If we eliminate vaccinations right now, certain diseases may never be found with a solution. In fact, vaccinations is the core of a lot of cures for diseases, and is the best way to study these diseases (9).

III Vaccines help humans
This is an obvious argument, but is the most reasonable one of why vaccinations shouldn't be banned. Vaccinations help humans, and has healed many people. The percentage of death with a vaccination is only a 1% chance (10). That is pretty low, and actually has more benefits than consequences. In my 11th source, it can be checked out on all the benefits for vaccinations (11).

And to conclude my opening argument, I like to point out one common miconception of vaccine usage. My opponent claims that vaccines cause autism. This is factually wrong because according to doctor Neal Hasley (12): "'The evidence is overwhelming,' he said. The Institute of Medicine has investigated and repeatedly said it's not true. A special federal court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, ruled against three families in 2009 who claimed vaccines caused their children's autism, saying they had been 'misled by physicians who are guilty … of gross medical misjudgment'.

Sources:
1. http://www.chickenvet.co.uk...
2. http://www.raising-chickens.org...
3. http://www.noah.co.uk...
4. http://www.peteducation.com...
5. http://www.cdc.gov...
6. http://www.who.int...
7. http://www.ifpma.org...
8. http://www.nhs.uk...
9. https://www.quora.com...
10. http://www.nvic.org...
11. http://www.cdc.gov...
12. http://www.nbcnews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

At this point I'm going to defend my argument.

"I Life of humans is far superior than animals" Con

Bare assertion, you must elaborate. I perceive no further evidence to back up this claim. "The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." [18]

"I will agree that they can suffer pain, but my opponent fails to show on how this relates to vaccines." Con

I thought I made the relevance of chicken's ability to feel pain clear in section II. Proving animal suffering in relation to vaccines. To reiterate, if a chicken can feel pain, it can suffer. Thus the suffering in animal testing to develop a new vaccine and breeding of chickens is relevant.

Here's why chicken's ability to suffer is relevant to vaccines

"The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year." rspca.org.uk [7]

"What animals experience

The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate: " rspca.org.uk [7]

"Animals are sometimes used in the testing of drugs, vaccines and other biologics, and medical devices, mainly to determine the safety of the medical product." fda.gov [8]

"How many animals are killed in animal testing in the US?

Around 10 million a year." numberof.net [9]

"Hens used for egg production come from hatcheries, where male chicks (none of which can lay eggs) are killed immediately after hatching. Each year, hundreds of millions of these vulnerable beings are suffocated or ground up alive to produce fertilizer or feed." Humanemyth.org [10]

"Vaccine testing in particular consumes an estimated 2.5 million animals every year because vaccines are often produced by weakening, inactivating, or detoxifying a virulent microorganism or toxin. Each batch of the finished product is then tested on animals, causing them pain, suffering, and death." [11]

As you can see animal suffer from vaccine research. Specifically physical pain, psychological distress, and death. 2.5 million animals suffering from vaccine research qualifies as animal suffering.

"However, he later on provides the reason on how this relates to vaccinations where my opponent claims that chickens suffer from vaccinations." Con

The baby roosters being ground up into fertilizer. Suffering from research and development which I already stated.

""This way you can prevent your birds getting the disease". Without this vaccination, flocks of chickens would die and recieve diseases which is much worse than a simple shot. As well as that disease can potentially spread putting humans lives at risk. Possible diseases that can potentially spread if not vaccinated include: Pox, Avian Flu, and so much more (2)." Con

Because the disease might kill a chicken that is already in terrible living conditions existing only for human use. If you look at the humanemyth [10] and peacefulprairie [19] links you might see why disease and death might be preferable to the conditions these chickens are kept in. That's assuming the vaccine works. Which I'm not so sure if vaccines work as seen in my round section VI. Doubts about vaccines effectiveness.

"Debeaked with a hot bloody blade at one day old with no anesthetic.
""Force molted (intentionally starved to shock the body into another laying cycle)." [19]

"Then my opponent argues that any animal suffers from vaccinations. This is false for many reasons because animals actually benefit from vaccinations than what my opponent claims. I ask my opponent how do animals suffer? If the suffering is by giving them an injection, then that isn't truly suffering. Suffering would be long term effect of negativity, and animals do not feel that pain for that long." Con

You don't seem to understand the entire suffering caused by animal testing of vaccines. Nor that these animals are bred in captivity. The conditions of captivity seem far from ideal, and thus suffering of the animals before animal testing. Let, alone the previous generations, the father and mother of the animals bred in captivity for animal testing purposes.

Finally, even if vaccines prevent disease in poultry, the factory farmed poultry weren't exactly living a humane lifestyle to begin with. Second, this doesn't negate the cruelty to develop the vaccine. You seem to be making an ends justify the means argument. Inflict pain on chicken A and develop a vaccine so chickens B and C can live disease free.

"Also, the percentage of animals with one of the common diseases rabies. "In the U.S., rabies represents a serious threat to the health of people and animals. Every year, it is estimated that 40,000 persons receive a rabies prevention treatment called post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) due to a potential exposure to rabies" (5). The solution, vaccinate your animals in order to help them live longer as well as protect your own family." Con

There is evidence of disease transferring from a non-human species to humans. I have doubts about the effectiveness of such treatments.

"Not only do vaccinations promote safety in health for children and adults, vaccinations also support the economy." Con

Cigarettes and alcohol also support the economy.

"In my opponents argument for Section III, he quotes that if vaccines are no longer demanded animal suffering would drop. Where is your evidence on that? There is no evidence that he provided, and neglects the fact on how much money is made for vaccination use." Con

I already made it very clear that animals suffer from animal testing to create vaccines. I didn't think I needed evidence to backup such a simple statement. Nevertheless, simple logic if vaccine research came to a halt, the animal suffering I already established would be reduced. If vaccines were banned then vaccine research would stop.

"fact on how much money is made for vaccination use." Con

Thank you for bring this up. Many times in history powerful and rich people have abused their power like Rockefeller.

"Critics accused Rockefeller of engaging in unethical practices, such as predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors, in order to gain a monopoly in the industry. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of anti-trust laws and ordered it to dissolve." [20].

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." [21]

Now which is there more money and profit? The absence of smoking and maintaining a healthy weight, or vaccines? The answer is there is more money and profit in vaccines.

Ran out of characters to fully address each of your points. Since animal suffering is involved, I don't have to prove vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, only enough doubt that they should be banned. That the animal suffering is not worth the benefits of vaccines.

Some go so far as to say the germ theory is a fraud. [22]

http://dictionary.sensagent.com...
http://peacefulprairie.org...
http://www.history.com...
http://biblehub.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
SnaxAttack

Con

I will take quotes stated by my opponent and argue on why they are false, vague, or silly to argue. For this round, I shall italicize my opponents arguments and state why this shouldn't result in the banning of vaccines.

Bare assertion, you must elaborate. I perceive no further evidence to back up this claim

I ran out of characters last round, and forgot to define my stance on the wording of "Life of humans is far superior than animals". I personally thought it was common sense, but I will gladly define it. In my first argument, I was stating that humans are far superior than an animal like a chicken. A chicken is only to be bred, take its eggs, and possibly cook it when its time is to go. A human on the otherhand is far superior in the event of raising the chickens, making society, and developing into a top tier of individuals. According to journalist the article "Why Humans are More Important than Other Animals" (1), The three main things which prove humans are far superior is having imagination, cognation, and potential. Animals do not have this, and is why I stand for the argument that humans are far superior than animals.

I thought I made the relevance of chicken's ability to feel pain clear in section II. Proving animal suffering in relation to vaccines. To reiterate, if a chicken can feel pain, it can suffer. Thus the suffering in animal testing to develop a new vaccine and breeding of chickens is relevant.

I apologize didn't realize your organization until you pointed it out. Thats fine, and will argue on why vaccinations on chickens isn't truly bad. First off, I like to point out the intelligence of chickens compared to lets say a dog. A dog can be trainable, while a chicken is actually considered idiotic. According to the article "3 Myths about Chickens" (2), it states: "I’ve decided your average chicken is packing about as much processing power as a VIC-20. You know, 5 kilobytes of RAM and a BASIC interpreter... However, like people, chickens display quite the range of stupidity". Chickens are the least of animals to worry about if tested, and the fact that we eat tons of them yearly proves that they are the best candidate for testing vaccinations.

The amount of chickens ate can be seen in this graph (3):
Chicken Consumption in China and the United States, 1960-2012
"Vaccine testing in particular consumes an estimated 2.5 million animals every year because vaccines are often produced by weakening, inactivating, or detoxifying a virulent microorganism or toxin. Each batch of the finished product is then tested on animals, causing them pain, suffering, and death"

This statement did make me question, so I looked up my opponents source (5). It does state that 2.5 million are tested, however the tests done are for a good cause. According to the article, it states: "Safety testing is carried out to try to make sure that a safe immune response is observed and that people who are inoculated with the vaccine are not infected by the pathogen". This proves that this is going to a good cause, and is more lineant on why vaccinations are good in society. As well as the fact that those 2.5 million animals tested with vaccinations are chickens (6), which I proved that they are the least worry some of animals. Apparantly what my opponent is claiming that an animal, classified as stupid, should have far more rights than the protection of a human. When in fact 90 percent of children in 2014 died becaue of lack of vacciation (7).

Because the disease might kill a chicken that is already in terrible living conditions existing only for human use. If you look at the humanemyth [10] and peacefulprairie [19] links you might see why disease and death might be preferable to the conditions these chickens are kept in. That's assuming the vaccine works. Which I'm not so sure if vaccines work as seen in my round section VI. Doubts about vaccines effectiveness

However, like I stated in the previous round, these diseases can be cured with a simple vaccination compared to other costs of spread of diseases. Currently with chickens, there is something called the "Bird Flu", in which its spreading and having to kill these chickens so it doesn't affect humans. And sadly if a human comes into contact with it, "However, influenza viruses mutate constantly, exchanging genetic material within themselves and also with other flu strains in people or animals. Public health specialists are always concerned that dangerous strains in animals will mix with human strains, causing widespread illness". The solution presented by Pekosz "This year’s flu vaccine doesn’t need to be altered to add protection against the H5N2 strain" (8). This shows how vaccinations help protect the people, and the animals themselves.

Cigarettes and alcohol also support the economy.

In the previous argument I argued that with vaccinations, there will be economic benefits. My opponent argues that there are different means, however alcohol and cigarettes don't make that much compared to vaccinations. According to the chart (9):



Also, who wouldn't want to recieve more money for their economy. Anyone would, and vaccinations is one of the ways to promote this as well as give good health to humans who deserve the right to be able to live. And also think about it like this, the more vaccinations used, the more revenue is recieved; the more benefits to these animals. It just requires testing on a few chickens here and there.

I Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Now which is there more money and profit? The absence of smoking and maintaining a healthy weight, or vaccines? The answer is there is more money and profit in vaccines.

Here, my opponent agrees that vaccines make more money and profit, and because of this means he leans towards the Con side of this debate.

My opponent ran out of characters near the end, but basically argued that animals shouldn't suffer. I addressed earlier that chickens are the least worry of animals to be tested on, and because of this should go to human values over a idiotic animal.

Sources:
1. http://www.skepticcanary.com...
2. http://www.nwedible.com...
3. http://www.earth-policy.org...
4. http://www.peta.org...
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6. http://www.cdc.gov...
7. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
8. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com...
9. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

"The three main things which prove humans are far superior is having imagination, cognation, and potential. Animals do not have this, and is why I stand for the argument that humans are far superior than animals." Con

" The elephant brain has also been shown to possess an abundance of the specialized neurons known as spindle cells, which are thought to be associated with self-awareness, empathy, and social awareness in humans. Elephants have even passed the mirror test of self-recognition, something only humans, and some great apes and dolphins, had been known to do."[23]

"watching Kakama pick up a log and carry it with him for hours. At one point, Kakama made a nest and placed the log in it, as if it were a small chimpanzee. "[24]

"Kanzi, the famous bonobo, liked to pretend as well. Primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh described watching Kanzi hide invisible objects under blankets or leaves, later removing them from their hiding spots, and pretending to eat them." [24]

Are you so sure animals don't have imagination, cognition, and potential? This seems at the very least evidence of imagination.

"I"ve decided your average chicken is packing about as much processing power as a VIC-20. You know, 5 kilobytes of RAM and a BASIC interpreter... However, like people, chickens display quite the range of stupidity". Chickens are the least of animals to worry about if tested, and the fact that we eat tons of them yearly proves that they are the best candidate for testing vaccinations. " Con

So basically your saying its okay to kill stupid sentient beings? Then, what makes it okay to kill chickens and not the mentally handicapped? How about autistic children? Should they be tested on because of their lack of intelligence? Also, there is a huge amount of chickens eaten, yet how is this relevant? We shouldn't be eating nor testing on chickens. They feel pain and have empathy.

" As well as the fact that those 2.5 million animals tested with vaccinations are chickens (6)" Con.

Huh? All 2.5 million are chickens, I will verify that. Nope doesn't state anything about 2.5 million chickens tested in your link six. In fact the word chicken isn't mentioned.

"The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year." rspca.org.uk [7]

Mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs, and primates are used.

"In 1960, it was determined that the rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the poliovirus vaccines" [25].

I doubt those rhesus monkeys gave up their kidneys willingly.

"Also, who wouldn't want to recieve more money for their economy. Anyone would" Con

Because people with lots of money are so kind and compassionate. Just because we desire something, doesn't mean it is good for us. Crack addicts desire crack, yet its common knowledge that crack is detrimental to human health.

My opponent doesn't counter the love of money 1 Timothy 6:10 quote. Instead deflecting with this quote.

"Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

While an effective counter for animal suffering, this quote does nothing to address the money made from vaccines. Also what exactly are the parameters for dominion? Does that mean we can be ruthless tyrants to animals? Or perhaps it is a gentler relationship?

"Here, my opponent agrees that vaccines make more money and profit, and because of this means he leans towards the Con side of this debate." Con

On the contrary, if I see the love of money as the root of all kinds of evil, I do not see that vaccines making more money is a Con argument. In fact, I see it as a Pro argument.

"My opponent ran out of characters near the end, but basically argued that animals shouldn't suffer. I addressed earlier that chickens are the least worry of animals to be tested on, and because of this should go to human values over a idiotic animal." Con

An idiotic animal Con, an not a.

Cons argument is basically humans are vastly superior to animals and God gave us Dominion over animals thus the suffering of the animal is tolerable. Not only that but vaccines help the economy and prevent disease.

I've already proven that the difference between elephants and humans is smaller than we first imagined. Lets look at the word Dominion.

"Humanity was to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28)"we were to hold a position of command over it;" [26]

"When God gave humanity dominion over the animals, it was in order to care for, tend to, and use those animals to their fullest potential in a just manner. " [26]

I don't see any reference to neglecting animals or mistreating them in the Bible. I don't see how factory farming nor animal testing is consistent with the Bible nor Dominion over animals.

Remember Adam and Eve ate fruit at first, not animal flesh. Consider reading George Malkmus book on why Christians get Sick. [27].

"Religious arguments against inoculation were soon advanced. For example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"." [28]

" What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." [29]

Are you so sure we should be injecting ourselves with a vaccine needle with toxins? Doesn't a needle resemble a serpent's tooth?

"If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple." [30]

Are you you should be injecting these substances into your body? [31]

Thanks for reading.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.bbc.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://www.christianbook.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
http://biblehub.com...
http://www.cdc.gov...
SnaxAttack

Con

"The elephant brain has also been shown to possess an abundance of the specialized neurons known as spindle cells, which are thought to be associated with self-awareness, empathy, and social awareness in humans. Elephants have even passed the mirror test of self-recognition, something only humans, and some great apes and dolphins, had been known to do."[23]

"watching Kakama pick up a log and carry it with him for hours. At one point, Kakama made a nest and placed the log in it, as if it were a small chimpanzee. "[24]

"Kanzi, the famous bonobo, liked to pretend as well. Primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh described watching Kanzi hide invisible objects under blankets or leaves, later removing them from their hiding spots, and pretending to eat them." [24]

In my opponents argument, he argues that animals have imagination however I will argue that these a targeted towards certain animals. Kanzi the Bonobo had some potential with imagination, but a majority of primates really do not have imagination. In fact, stated by Marion W. Copeland, the whole presumption that apes have imagination came from us humans. We developed the term "imagination", and we make the presumption that any living thing has imagination, when in reality we train them to have imagination (1 & 2). This theory can also be applied to from sociologist's Cooley's "Looking Glass Theory". The theory is: "Cooley´s concept of the looking glass self, states that a person’s self grows out of a person´s social interactions with others. The view of ourselves comes from the contemplation of personal qualities and impressions of how others perceive us. Actually, how we see ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we believe others see us" (3).

The thing is, we are the lore of developing these animals imagination by putting our presumptions that animals do have imagination. If we didn't, animals would just be animals, but we put our own presumptions. So in reality, they are just animals and nothing more. Also, a major difference between humans imagination and an animals is: "As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species—at least by our own definition of intelligence". As it is seen, humans have more intelligence as well as more imagination technically.

So basically your saying its okay to kill stupid sentient beings? Then, what makes it okay to kill chickens and not the mentally handicapped? How about autistic children? Should they be tested on because of their lack of intelligence? Also, there is a huge amount of chickens eaten, yet how is this relevant? We shouldn't be eating nor testing on chickens. They feel pain and have empathy.

However, here is the difference between a disabled human and chicken. A human can show love and compassion no matter their condition, a chicken on the other hand cannot. A chicken does not show this, and is one of the few animals that just does not care about other humans feelings. If they don't care, why shouldn't they be tested on? Also, they are considered to be one of the animals with the most chance for disease (5). Because of their chance for disease, vaccinating them will hopefully prevent that disease, and because of this is much better. Then my opponent states why eating hickens is relevant. This is relevant because of proving how many do not care about chickens, and is the best test subject for these "dangerous" vaccinations. Even though proven in the second round, there is truly no harm to animals with vaccinations.

Mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs, and primates are used.
Yes I will agree that these animals were used for vaccinations, however they are not used as commonly as my opponent makes. What have we achieved with vaccinating tests? "Today there are far fewer visible reminders of the suffering, injuries, and premature deaths caused by diseases that can now be prevented with vaccines. For most of the vaccine-preventable diseases, there has been a 95 percent or more reduction in incidence" (6). That is a pretty high precentage, plus also vaccinations have resolved the biggest issues like polio and even diseases that common animals had.

According to facts about animal research, with animal testing on vaccinations there have been many resolutions to diseases that animals had and could kill them. In fact, it was better they were tested than not having an animal at all or for the animal to suffer with that disease. For the animals being tested, "The MRC states that approximately 30% of their research uses animals and the remainder of studies conducted are in other models, like those listed above". 30%, that is lower than what my opponent presumes, the animal most used are mice (7). Mice are used commonly because of their life span (Beig 2-3 years), high reproduction rate, and easiest to see different changes (8). It is clear they are the best test subject because of them being so common, there is truly no loss.

Because people with lots of money are so kind and compassionate. Just because we desire something, doesn't mean it is good for us. Crack addicts desire crack, yet its common knowledge that crack is detrimental to human health.

Money is used for programs in society, making businesses, and standing up for animal rights. They give us the resources to operate within society, or to even interact with others in an exchangement agreement.

My opponent doesn't counter the love of money 1 Timothy 6:10 quote. Instead deflecting with this quote.

Actually I did. I was referring to how humans are far superior to animals, and how doing this benefits our economy.

On the contrary, if I see the love of money as the root of all kinds of evil, I do not see that vaccines making more money is a Con argument. In fact, I see it as a Pro argument.

That is an opinionated response, and is not really supported by any facts. Greed can be evil I agree, but just because you see it not helping the economy doesn't make it a fact. The fact is, in my previous argument, I brought a chart proving on how it is worth more than smoking or tobacco. That is a fact, not an opinion.

An idiotic animal Con, an not a

Yeah I forgot an "N", not the end of the world. Also if this was an isult, or agressive attack, this deserves loss of conduct points because of "attacking" your opponent.

When God gave humanity dominion over the animals, it was in order to care for, tend to, and use those animals to their fullest potential in a just manner.


Definition of "Dominion": "the power or right of governing and controlling" (9). We have control over the animals, and we have the right to do with them any way we want. And we are technically using them to their fullest potential, to see if vaccinations are safe for humans.

Are you so sure we should be injecting ourselves with a vaccine needle with toxins? Doesn't a needle resemble a serpent's tooth?

That quote is more referring ot not getting tattoos on the body, or drinking like an alcoholic. Putting stuff that heals you is good because its not permanately damaging the body. It is healing it, which is what both God and Jesus wants for us; to be resolved of pain and be healthy.

Sources will be in the comment section!

Debate Round No. 4
Stupidape

Pro

Con seems to argue that animal suffering is tolerable based upon two main points

I. Animals are stupid and thus inferior.

What does inferior mean anyways? Inferior " adjective
1.
lower in station, rank, degree, or grade (often followed by to):
a rank inferior to colonel.
2.
lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base:
descending into the inferior regions of the earth.
3.
of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard:
an inferior product.
4.
less important, valuable, or worthy:
B+ bonds are inferior to AAA bonds.
5.
acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre:
an inferior observer of human nature.
"

How about acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre? Humans are smarter, so does that give us the right to act selfishly towards those that are less intelligent? Nay, "with great power comes great responsibility."

II. God giving humans dominion over animals.

Con using religion to rationalize the suffering and killing of a wide variety of animals for vaccine testing purposes. Yet, ignores religious criticism of vaccines. "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"." [28]

What about the character of God? Mercy seems consistent with the character of God. Acts 3:26 "Even so has the Lord Jesus Christ come from His infinite, far-away throne, on His errand of mercy, to a sinner's soul."

Also which is closer to God's way of healing? Does God heal with potions and sharp needles? From what I understand of the Bible God heals with faith. I just don't see how vaccines are consistent with the Bible and the character of God.

Vaccines are researched and developed by a cult of sadistic witches and warlocks who torture animals. Then, charlatan healers kill or permanently injure babies by injecting these vile toxins into the babies' lifeblood. Big business looks the other way because profit margins are high. The public is brainwashed by teachers who mindlessly reiterate textbooks. All in the name of destroying some invisible force labeled a pathogen, virus, bacteria, and other names.

Ban vaccines and put a stop to this treachery. Vote pro.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.quotecounterquote.com...
http://biblehub.com...'s_errand_of_mercy.htm
SnaxAttack

Con

For this final round of the debate, I shall Rebuttal my opponents final few statements and discuss how this debate went.

How about acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre? Humans are smarter, so does that give us the right to act selfishly towards those that are less intelligent? Nay, "with great power comes great responsibility.

However, if we are talking about giving health to humans it is worth the cause because if we look at what vaccinations have done for us in the past, it was worth it. Examples being polio, hepatitis A, and many more becuase of making one sacrifice (1). So what is so wrong about giving health to humans? Throughout this debate, my opponent has not really proved how a human is not as important as an animal and hence the reason why my opponents argument is flawed.

Also, my opponent neglects the fact that with vaccinations can heal diseases that protect many animals; the prime example in this debate being chickens. In the previous round, I mentioned that chickens have tons of diseases and because of this need vaccinations or else all other ypes of animals will suffer. Suffer much more than just a simple shot just to see if the vaccine is reliable enough. In fact, more animals are being saved with vaccinations than without vaccinations (2).

Con using religion to rationalize the suffering and killing of a wide variety of animals for vaccine testing purposes. Yet, ignores religious criticism of vaccines. "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation

Stated in 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God". God wants us to live in a healthy life, not a life full of illness and vaccinations promote this idea. "The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we do we’re to do it to the glory of God. It also tells us in Isaiah that we were created and formed by God to glorify Him. This is our primary purpose in life – to glorify God. We do that when we care for our body and live a healthy lifestyle" (3).

What about the character of God? Mercy seems consistent with the character of God. Acts 3:26 "Even so has the Lord Jesus Christ come from His infinite, far-away throne, on His errand of mercy, to a sinner's soul."

We are giving mercy to those who need healing with vaccinations. Definition of "mercy": "Compassionate treatment of those in distress" (4). We are being compassionate by giving the ability of health to humans within the use of vaccinations. In fact, vaccinations have saved 732,000 childrens lifes (5). How is this not compassionate, when we are giving the greatest gift of all; life. With just a small price on mainly testing chickens and mice, which my opponent did not rebuttal this round.

Also which is closer to God's way of healing? Does God heal with potions and sharp needles? From what I understand of the Bible God heals with faith. I just don't see how vaccines are consistent with the Bible and the character of God.

Once more, stated multiple times, God just wants society to live healthily and take care of their bodies. Not do dumb stuff like jumping off a bridge or getting ran over by a car. Vaccinations are not even mentioned at all in the Bible, except to live a healthy lifestyle.

Vaccines are researched and developed by a cult of sadistic witches and warlocks who torture animals. Then, charlatan healers kill or permanently injure babies by injecting these vile toxins into the babies' lifeblood. Big business looks the other way because profit margins are high. The public is brainwashed by teachers who mindlessly reiterate textbooks. All in the name of destroying some invisible force labeled a pathogen, virus, bacteria, and other names.

The part I find intriguing about this statement voters is that my opponent makes a crazy claim, yet provides no evidence. This claim is more opinionated than based off the facts and really not a true argument because of providing no evidence.

To conclude this debate, I like to state how this debate went. My opponent made strong claims with admitedly lots of evidence, but most of his or her evidence was questionable. I was saving this statement till the end, before I make strong claims and I think the time is now to bring this up. My opponents evidence seemed heavily biased in multiple areas that animals are "tortured". If he provided multiple articles to support this claim, that would be acceptable; but my opponent provided a biased website titled "PETA". PETA is a heavily biased animal rights group, and have been said to be unrealiable with the facts. One example is about animals being tortured, and the "facts" the leader of the group stated were really off (6). Because of this, it was hard to determine whether or not the animal "torture" claims are reliable or false. Also, my opponent used another unreliable source being Wikipedia. Wikipedia is famous for its unrealiability, and should not be truly used in an argument; which my opponent did in Round 4.

Moving on from the evidence portion, my opponent dropped many of my arguments throughout the debate. The first being how vaccinations helped many people, but my opponent didn't even Rebuttaled. Just stated at the end of Round 3: "Ran out of characters to fully address each of your points. Since animal suffering is involved, I don't have to prove vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, only enough doubt that they should be banned. That the animal suffering is not worth the benefits of vaccines". The understanding of running out of characters is fine, but he does not bring up this argument any more meaning he dropped this section of the debate. While I provided the facts that vaccines do help people.

Another thing he dropped was the economic impacts of vaccinations by not even mentioning it in this round. Because of this, he failed to rebuttal and should result in a victory for me in this debate. And for the religious section, he argues that pain and suffering is bad and I agree, but that is referred to humans than animals. Stated multiple times, God wants us humans to live a healthy life and we can do this without banning vaccinations.

To conclude, my opponent makes multiple claims but has questionable evidence. He dropped multiple arguments, while I continued through the debate with my same case from the start. Because of this, the winner should hopefully be easily determinable; and I urge voters to vote Con! I thank my opponent for this debate also.

Sources:
1. http://www.forbes.com...
2. http://www.healinghandsanimalhospital.com...
3. http://www.faithandhealthconnection.org...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5. http://www.livescience.com...
6. http://www.agcouncil.com...

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Testing of animals is proof that the medical system is a sadistic cult of ruthless money grabbing idiots.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Last link got cut off I ran out of the 8,000 characters. Here is the correct link [17]:
http://www.debate.org...

I need that tinyurl bsh1 uses. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.