The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Zealotical
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,788 times Debate No: 7750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

studentathletechristian8

Pro

I will present the affirmative to the resolution, "Based on the Bible, Animal Experimentation is Acceptable." I will simply support why animal experimentation is acceptable based on the Bible. First I would like to define several words:

Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Animal Experimentation- the act, process, practice, or an instance of making experiments on animals
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Acceptable- capable or worthy of being accepted; capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

I will now prove why animal experimentation is acceptable based on the bible:

Genesis 1: 26-28 reads:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(http://bibleresources.bible.com...)

In these passages from the Bible, males and females have clearly been given control of all the animals on earth:"have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Because the people of the earth have been given complete control/dominion of all the animals on earth, that would make animal experimentation acceptable, because humans have complete control over animals and can do whatever they want with them, based specifically on these several verses of the Bible. I believe I have successfully made my case.

I await my opponent's contentions and arguments.
Zealotical

Con

First of all, not everyone believes in God.

Second of all, if we can do experiments on animals then we should be able to do experiments on other humans because technically, we are a more advanced type of animal but we are still animals none the less. Animals are living things just like humans! They should not be abused like this. If a God/Goddess does exist, do you really think that he/she would want you doing experiments on innocent animals? I don't care whats in the bible, that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted!

Third of all, just because its in the bible doesn't mean its true. There are so many different versions of the bible. How do you know the bible is from God? Someone could of just made all this stuff up about God, Jesus, Satan, etc... and made all this stuff up because they wanted an excuse to be lazy on sundays. That is why they also made up a thing aobut going to church on sundays!

Fourth of all, If it said in the bible that if you believe in God and shoot yourself in the head, you will not die. Would you do it? I think not!

I think its more depressing when an innocent animal dies then when a human dies.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Pro

I apologize for the misunderstanding, you must not have understood what this debate was truly about. What I mean by the resolution is whether or not animal experimentation is acceptable from a biblical standpoint. I am not saying anything at all about different versions or if people don't believe in God. This debate is strictly about from the biblical standpoint if animal experimentation is acceptable. I guess there was miscommunication of the real intention of the debate.

I will try to rebuttal your contentions and clarify the true meaning in the debate:

"First of all, not everyone believes in God."

This is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We are discussing from the biblical standpoint if animal experimentation is acceptable. For this debate, it does not matter if people do or do not believe in God, the debate is strictly about if based on the Bible if it animal experimentation is acceptable.

"Second of all, if we can do experiments on animals then we should be able to do experiments on other humans because technically, we are a more advanced type of animal but we are still animals none the less. Animals are living things just like humans! They should not be abused like this."

Okay I find major problems with this argument. First, there is a major difference between people and animals. People have a much higher intellect and thinking capacity than animals do. I realize that humans along with animals are put under the kingdom Animalia, but there is a clear distinction between a person and an animal. A person is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a person. When you say that animals are living things just like humans, so what? Plants are living things. Bananas are living things. They are clearly different from humans. "They should not be abused like this." I believe you are saying that animals are being abused in animal experimentation. Actually, a majority of animals used in animal experimentation feel no pain at all, and they are helping with research that can possibly save human lives and the lives of other animals.

"If a God/Goddess does exist, do you really think that he/she would want you doing experiments on innocent animals? I don't care whats in the bible, that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted!"

According to the Bible, which the debate is actually on, God has given us control and dominion over animals to do whatever we want with them, so yes that would support God allowing us to do experiments on "innocent" animals. And just saying animals are innocent is simply an appeal to emotion-many animals are not innocent. "I don't care whats in the bible" This whole debate is on the fact that animal experimentation is acceptable based on the bible! You must not have understood the true meaning behind the debate. "that is cruel and animal cruelty should not be accepted!" Animal experimentation is different from animal cruelty buddy. You obviously do not understand that animals are treated much better in experimentation than they are when they are cruelly treated. It is a common misconception and a fallacy you are projecting.

"just because its in the bible doesn't mean its true."

Dude, this debate is on whether the Bible supports the acceptance of animal experimentation! Look at the resolution. It does not matter in this debate if everything in the Bible is made up (which it is not), we are discussing whether the Bible in itself supports the acceptance of animal experimentation.

"Fourth of all, If it said in the bible that if you believe in God and shoot yourself in the head, you will not die. Would you do it? I think not!"

This comment is just absurd. It is not related to the topic at hand-throughout this whole debate you have not answered if the bible does or does not accept animal experimentation-which is the resolution. And technically the Bible would not say that, because many people who believe in God do shoot themselves in the head and die.

"I think its more depressing when an innocent animal dies then when a human dies."

This is not related to the topic at hand! None of your arguments were! Using the word innocent is again an appeal to emotion-not all animals are innocent, so you would need to prove all animals are innocent. And that is just sad that you think it is more depressing when an animal dies than when a human dies. I have nothing against animals-I love them, but if your mom died and your dog died, which death would make you more depressed? I would hope it would be your mom.

In conclusion, my opponent failed to create arguments that related to the topic at hand-whether or not based on the bible if animal experimentation is acceptable. This is strictly from a biblical view and standpoint-my opponent failed to rebuttal my argument and did not make a single argument that answered the resolution. The vote must go to Pro. thank you
Zealotical

Con

Zealotical forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the second round, so my previous argument stands and has not yet been rebutted.

Though my opponent has forfeited and does not allow me to rebuttal any of his arguments, I will simply say that this debate is strictly on if whether or not the Bible supports animal experimentation as acceptable.

You can look at my previous arguments, and I have proven the resolution. In my first argument, I show that the Bible states that humans have been given dominion over all the animals-in the water, in the air, in the ocean. I have given sources for the definitions and the site where you can directly read the text from the Bible. Because the Bible states that we have control over animals, that means we can choose to do what we want with them, and that includes animal experimentation, therefore the Bible does support animal experimentation.

P.S. This does not refer to the cruel animal experimentation that they use on animals to test items such as make-up products. This is the positive animal experimentation that is used to help better scientific studies.

It should also be taken into consideration that my argument stands. The opponent forfeited, did not respond to my arguments, which means I have proven my point.
Zealotical

Con

Zealotical forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lolapepper 4 years ago
lolapepper
How about this: God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, therefore Stevie Wonder must be God. Really??? The Bible can be twisted and contorted to back any opinion.

If you want to use part of the Bible to support your opinion, then you must also consider:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:19 - For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

2. Exodus 23:5 - If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.

3. Proverbs 6:6-8 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest"

Then after all consideration, get on your biblical motorcycle as apparently David's Triumph could be heard throughout the land!!
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
i dont think you fully understood the resoution. this view is coming from whether or not the Bible supports animal experimentation
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
dude im using this argument based from the bible it is coming straight from the biblical standpoint
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Unless you're using a pig or something unclean.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
studentathletechristian8ZealoticalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
studentathletechristian8ZealoticalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
studentathletechristian8ZealoticalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 8 years ago
Zealotical
studentathletechristian8ZealoticalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07