The Instigator
draxxt
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
HadenQuinlan
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

It is morally acceptable to test products designed for human benefit or use on non-human animals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/11/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,560 times Debate No: 3598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

draxxt

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I must also say that when I refer to "Animals" it is a reference to non-human animals.
First I must define a few terms:
Merriam-Webster defines:
Immoral as "not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
Moral as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical"
right as "righteous, upright"
behaviour as " the manner of conducting oneself "
I will attempt to argue the immorality of this resolution in the following contentions:

1) An animal is no less justified as a living creature as a human is.

Due to the Pavlov's dog test, Animals are proven conscious and able to deduce/induce situations.
"Pavlov became interested in studying reflexes when he saw that the dogs drooled without the proper stimulus. Although no food was in sight, their saliva still dribbled. It turned out that the dogs were reacting to lab coats. Every time the dogs were served food, the person who served the food was wearing a lab coat. Therefore, the dogs reacted as if food was on its way whenever they saw a lab coat.

In a series of experiments, Pavlov then tried to figure out how these phenomena were linked. For example, he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling."

http://nobelprize.org...

A) Pavlov tested on domestic animals which, according to http://www.stopanimaltesting.com..., are a majority of the animals used in testing. If domestic animals alone are granted conscious and deductive behavour, they resemble that of a human.

B) A human may object upon request and is given a chance to have heresay on the subject. Animals do not. They may object physically but has no prior grant to object. If it is immoral to test on a human with similar inductive and deductive skills, why not on an animal? As I stated before, an animal is no less justified as a living creature as a human is.

2) Animals are not verbally objective and are not being supported, by law, against test or abuse.

A) Animals have a lack of a little something that humans seem to take for granted: Communication amongst human beings in a collaborative manner. They (animals) have no way of procuring a defense of themselves for they have no plausible way of communicating verbally. Physical protests are often ignored or, to some extent, subdued.

B) Though some laws have been passed, Not much protection is provided for animals who are tested upon. Laws are set in action to uphold morals. Therefore, by proving it is immoral to test on animals, I will also prove that laws are not upholding the morals they are supposed to protect.

3) Animal experimentation rests on logical contradiction.

A)"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.'"-Professor Charles R. Magel

This is a lapse in logic as they are similar, granting neccessary evidence for testing but it is immoral because they are not similar to us. If this is the logic behind animal experimentation, there is definitely a need for further investigation as to why animal experimentation is neccessary.

B)Animals are treated with the utmost aggression in many cases of tests as seen in this video:

http://www.petatv.com...

And procured in this website:
"As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers..."
http://www.stopanimaltests.com...

I defy you to tell me that the evidence provided in these two preceeding sources alone aren't enough to claim Animal Experimentation is immoral.
Thank you and the best of wishes to my opponent.
HadenQuinlan

Pro

Before I begin any refutation or the articulation of a case of my own, it's necessary to get a few things out of the way. First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to such an interesting and prominent debate in today's society. Secondly, I'd like to get this out of the way, I hope that you, the judges will vote on this debate regardless of personal bias and instead off of the better debater. Finally, it's necessary to clarify a few things before I begin.

The resolution specifically states that the products tested are tested on animals but are designed for human use. This will be of importance later on. Also, it does not give a specific scenario that justifies animal-testing, only animal-testing as an event. Finally, it uses the term "acceptable". It is morally acceptable for an action to occur if it is the most moral action. We are not arguing the morality of said action, only the morality of this action versus other possible scenarios.

Formalities and framework out of the way, I'll address my opponents case before articulating my own.

"1) An animal is no less justified as a living creature as a human is."

I'd like to refute the Pavlov's dogs instance which has been presented. The tests conducted by Pavlov only show a conditioned response among animals. This test can imply the ability to reason, however all it specifically shows is that animals can learn, somewhat, from previous actions. However, the idea of emotions or any thought is not proven.

Animals are not philosophers, we have no current test that could possibly prove the ability to illogically reason, as some of our greatest philosophers have done, to play devil's advocate, if you will. Animals can only react upon a conditioned response. So you see, this test may imply some inkling of a beginning of reason, however it does not imply the ability to reason on the same level as humans. This logical conclusion shows that animals are not on the same level as humans, because they do not (assumedly) have the same brain functions that are attributed to mankind. My opponent uses the word, "similar", as you can see similar implies some relevance, however they are not the same. This idea applies greatly to this debate - it can only be equally unjust to test on an animal as a human if the animal is equal to the human, not similar. My opponent cannot show equality, therefore you see the justification present here.

You can clearly see, testing on animals is justified over humans because humans have a better developed brain pattern. Human reasoning has developed and is far past the small response animals have procured.

"2) Animals are not verbally objective and are not being supported, by law, against test or abuse."

The relevance to the actual debate that this contention holds is frail, at best. We are not discussing whether current animal-testing conditions in America are just, we are discussing whether animal-testing period is just. As you can see, the amount of weight this holds on the debate is small to none. Like I stated above in the framework of the debate, there is no specific animal testing implied. Only animal-testing in general. The resolution is not, "There should be reforms for animal-testing in America", or, "Animal-testing systems in America are unjust", the resolution is, "It is morally acceptable to test products designed for human benefit or use on animals." Therefore this restrictive scenario which is such a prevalent theme of my opponents case holds very little weight in the philosophical debate that the resolution implies.

"3) Animal experimentation rests on logical contradiction."

The logical contradiction that my opponent presents is not a logical contradiction, because the quote he uses skews the words. A better analysis would be:

We test animals because they are like us. So why is it just? They ARE NOT us.

There is no logical contradiction there, the fact is we test animals because they have a similar features as humans, however they are not humans. I do not see a contradiction here, because there is no logical contradiction, only a contradiction in the skewed words presented by the quote my opponent has scrounged out of the depths of the internet.

"And procured in this website:
"As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year..."

As I have stated above, we aren't discussing animal-testing in a specific scenario, we are discussing the premise, the ideal of animal-testing overall.

Most of the judges will agree that this refutation is not as thorough as it could be. The reason for this is because there's a large part of my case that must be presented below which backs up all of the previous refutations. Now, pay close attention as I prove how animal-testing is morally acceptable.

By definition of animal (American Heritage Dictionary),

" A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

We see that humans are also animals. They are not the same as other animals, because of the evidence presented in refutation of his first contention, however they are still a specie of animal. As any logical thinking being will agree, the most prominent issue in any specie is survival of the specie. For example, if you were starving and there was a chicken nearby, it would be morally acceptable to kill and eat said chicken. This is because A) the chicken is lesser than the human, B) it is necessary to ensure (for a while) the survival of the specie. The second most prominent issue is the well-being of the specie. So, how does this hold relevance? Let me divulge deeper into this issue...

I offer you a scenario-by-scenario analysis of the resolution.

Scenario 1: Animals are tested, to ensure that a bad product does not make its way into human culture and cause devastating side effects to humans.
Scenario 2: Humans are tested, for the same reason.
Scenario 3: Nobody is tested.

What seems most logical? We can eliminate the 3rd scenario instantaneously, because that scenario has no benefit whatsoever. We are now left with the two scenarios: Animal Testing or Human Testing.

As I have shown, animals are of lesser intellectual fiber than humans, classifying it as more justified to test upon them than on the humans. But also, refer to the argument I have presented above. Well-being of the specie and survival of the specie are the two most important issues. Human testing would endanger both the well being and the survival of the human in question by subjecting him to dangerous materials.

Finally, take into account the framework argument I presented in the beginning of this case. I specifically noted the moral, "Acceptability" of this action. In all scenarios there is a detrimental effect, however we must not examine if said action is moral, but if our morals allow this action to happen. Our morals allow, permit and accept animal testing because it is the, "lesser of two evils" so to speak. This is why it is acceptable, because all other scenarios endanger the issues so dear to any race whereas this issue helps protect both the well-being and the survivability of the race, but has almost no moral weight because animals, as I have shown, are lesser than human beings.

So, let's recap.

1) Animals are lesser than human beings.
2) Not testing animals would endanger both human survival and human well-being.
3) Therefore, we must take animal testing over the other scenarios because it is the most beneficial and the most moral of all the actions.

For those reasons presented to you, as well as the clear refutations of my opponents case above, you must vote Con.

Thanks again,

~HQ
Debate Round No. 1
draxxt

Con

Thank you for that rebuttal and to the judges, I would like to concur with my opponent in asking that bias not hold your judgement in this decision.
That being said, I would like to point out a few things my opponent might have misinterpreted:

1)
""1) An animal is no less justified as a living creature as a human is."

I'd like to refute the Pavlov's dogs instance which has been presented. The tests conducted by Pavlov only show a conditioned response among animals. This test can imply the ability to reason, however all it specifically shows is that animals can learn, somewhat, from previous actions. However, the idea of emotions or any thought is not proven."
I never once indicated animals have emotional expression, therefore the only thing left to prove is that animals have thought process. If an animal has a conscious ability to deduce, is that not thought?
M-W defines
thought as "the product of mental activity; that which one thinks"
reason as "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences"
Things resulting in mental activity are generally formed by "mental powers" therefore, the ability to reason leads on to believe that animals have a thought process.

2)"Animals are not verbally objective and are not being supported, by law, against test or abuse."

The relevance to the actual debate that this contention holds is frail, at best. We are not discussing whether current animal-testing conditions in America are just, we are discussing whether animal-testing period is just. "

I never mentioned America specifically, save for my quote which I will elaborate later. I usually refereed to experimentation with animals as a whole, separate from any form of country or foreign policy exposition.

""Animal experimentation rests on logical contradiction."

The logical contradiction that my opponent presents is not a logical contradiction, because the quote he uses skews the words. A better analysis would be:

We test animals because they are like us. So why is it just? They ARE NOT us.

There is no logical contradiction there, the fact is we test animals because they have a similar features as humans, however they are not humans. I do not see a contradiction here, because there is no logical contradiction, only a contradiction in the skewed words presented by the quote my opponent has scrounged out of the depths of the internet."
The quote was from an esteemed journalist/ animal rights advocate who did not "scrounge" as my opponent so blatantly claims it but rather researched it.

4) ""And procured in this website:
"As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year..."

As I have stated above, we aren't discussing animal-testing in a specific scenario, we are discussing the premise, the ideal of animal-testing overall."

I am not suggesting that only one area be explored. no, this was just a number, a statistic that was most apt. If you would like a world applied statistic, I would gladly give one. If you're speaking of its relevance to my contentions or the resolution itself, you might want to recheck what exactly I said: My contention under which this scenario lie was used in order to expound upon the fact that animals were being tortured and mistreated.

"I offer you a scenario-by-scenario analysis of the resolution.

Scenario 1: Animals are tested, to ensure that a bad product does not make its way into human culture and cause devastating side effects to humans.
Scenario 2: Humans are tested, for the same reason.
Scenario 3: Nobody is tested."
My opponent delivers an ultimatum when, truely, he has missed another, very viable solution:
4: Humans are tested, for the same reason BUT are fully obliging to the fact that they are being tested upon.

Yes, it still leaves us with two scenarios as a whole but the biproduct of one is more suitable.

"As I have shown, animals are of lesser intellectual fiber than humans, classifying it as more justified to test upon them than on the humans. But also, refer to the argument I have presented above. Well-being of the specie and survival of the specie are the two most important issues. Human testing would endanger both the well being and the survival of the human in question by subjecting him to dangerous materials."
So, in that logic, mentally handicap people are subject to experimentation? I question that (Being things of lower intellect are subject to experimentation) is a very moral action.

Also, if you want to get into the acceptance level, it would end up a fallacy so I ask my opponent not to use that point for the good of the both of us and the judges.

In that, I strongly urge you to vote in Negation of this resolution
Thank you.
HadenQuinlan

Pro

Thanks for an exciting debate so far, lets keep it up!

"Things resulting in mental activity are generally formed by "mental powers" therefore, the ability to reason leads on to believe that animals have a thought process."

No, this really is an ignorant conclusion. You can't assume animals have the same, or even close to the same level of thought as humans. In fact, my definition of thought was more of abstract thought, which I mentioned early. I'm in agreeance with you on a certain statement, "a thought process". A single thought process does not mean they have the same level, or the same amount of thought processes that a human has. Learning does not mean thought, micro-evolution amongst animals is proven - so therefore a finches beak can learn and can think because it evolved in response to the shape of the flowers that it sucked honey from. This is illogical, and it really holds no relevance over the purpose of this debate. My opponent is trying to pin a conditioned response as reason, when it clearly is not.

"I usually refereed to experimentation with animals as a whole, separate from any form of country or foreign policy exposition."

Would you care to give me an example? I'd like you to support your wild claims with at least SOME evidence. Actually, I'd prefer we stick to arguing the philosophical portion of this debate, as I mentioned in my 1st speech.

"The quote was from an esteemed journalist/ animal rights advocate who did not "scrounge" as my opponent so blatantly claims it but rather researched it."

My opponent completely drops the argument presented. He simply says, "it's from a journalist" therefore it must be undeniable fact? No! As I have shown, my opponent skews his words. I rephrased it, presented my argument, and my opponent completely dropped it. Please extend that argument throughout this round.

"4: Humans are tested, for the same reason BUT are fully obliging to the fact that they are being tested upon."

This argument, besides the fact that it falls under the 2nd scenario given and requires no extra scenario, is ridiculously based upon the notion that my opponent has tried to infer that animals can make concious decisions. CONDITIONED RESPONSE IS NOT A CONCIOUS DECISION. A conditioned response is equal to dropping a marble down a chute, it will fall down. Conditioned response shows an inkling of intelligence, however in no way does it classify animals close to human intelligence. It's incredibly ignorant of the idea of reason to assume this.

Also, what about products which are dangerous to the human? Products that are life threatening? Is not justifiable to test them on an animal over a human? Just as it is moral to kill an animal if you are starving, it is moral to save a human life, or ensure the welfare of a human life versus an animal life. Simply because humans and animals are different. My opponent has completely disregarded this argument presented. He has failed to address the protection of the specie argument I gave in my first round, please extend it to this round.

"So, in that logic, mentally handicap people are subject to experimentation? I question that (Being things of lower intellect are subject to experimentation) is a very moral action."

You're completely skewing my words, and to be honest it's getting to me. This statement more than ever shows how my opponent has completely disregarded the survival of the specie argument presented. If you'd actually like to argue my logic, it'd look a little something like this:

"So, in that logic, mentally handicapped primates are subject to experimentation? I question the fact the morality within the given circumstances of that action, regardless of the morality of the individual action of experimentation"

My opponent is skewing words in an appeal to the general audience, however I'm not arguing the morality of experimenting on animals, I'm arguing the morality of it versus the other available options. The most moral action is the action that ensures survival of the specie and well being of the specie, and as you can see I have clearly shown that animal-testing, the idea of animal testing, is morally acceptable within the given scenario. Testing on mentally handicapped people would not ensure survival, which we have accepted as the most important issue within a specie. Furthermore, my opponent makes many wild claims about laws, treatment, etc etc and posts a single video and a single quote to undeniable support his case. This is ludicrous, considering the fact that he said he was NOT discussing the United States when both of his links were within the United States... I fail to see the logic behind this.

So for the crystallization of my points, and in order to remove the falsehoods my opponent is trying to pin on my case, let me explain my entire case in the following paragraph.

There are three scenarios in which to test products:

1) Animal testing, in order to ensure the well being and survival of the human specie.
2) Human testing (regardless of willingness), for the following reason.
3) No testing.

We can clearly drop the 3rd one, as it'd have a largely detrimental effect. So we're left with two. As I've shown, humans are animals, we are a specie. Within any specie the most important aspect, issue, trial within that specie is ensuring the survival of the specie. Behind that is ensuring the well-being of the specie. With this in mind, we can clearly eliminate the second scenario because it DOES NOT ENSURE HUMAN SURVIVAL / WELL BEING. This point has been completely dropped by my opponent, take that into account. It's irrefutable unless he wishes to change natural instinct.

Animals are not equal to humans because, while they have inklings and the beginning of developed thought, they do lack reason. They lack choice, the only ability that has been proven by the test (Pavlov's Dogs) provided by my opponent is the idea of conditioned response, basically, cause -> effect. I punch a wall, my hand hurts. My fist does not have conscience because it decides to hurt, it's a conditioned response.

Finally, we are not arguing the morality of testing period. We're arguing the morality of animal testing versus the other options. As I have clearly shown, the other options are against natural instinct and what is most important to the human race.

As a judge, you are obligated to vote in the most logical position presented throughout the debate. The logic presented by my case is irrefutable, whereas the logic my opponent presents is nothing but skewing the very words I have said. At this point in the debate, if you are a logical judge, you must vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
draxxt

Con

Thank you, as well, you have truly stimulated me in the sense that I have my debating skills so, regardless if I win or lose, I will have gained a valuable tool, thank you again.

"No, this really is an ignorant conclusion. You can't assume animals have the same, or even close to the same level of thought as humans. In fact, my definition of thought was more of abstract thought, which I mentioned early. I'm in agreeance with you on a certain statement, "a thought process". A single thought process does not mean they have the same level, or the same amount of thought processes that a human has. Learning does not mean thought, micro-evolution amongst animals is proven - so therefore a finches beak can learn and can think because it evolved in response to the shape of the flowers that it sucked honey from. This is illogical, and it really holds no relevance over the purpose of this debate. My opponent is trying to pin a conditioned response as reason, when it clearly is not. "

That is not an ignorant conclusion as I never once said animals are close to the thought process of humans. Therefore, you have no justification for cslling my point invalid or ignorant. It is a simple notion that if an animal has a thought process, we have to further prove it's thought process in order for you to be justified. That is unattainable at the present time.

"My opponent completely drops the argument presented. He simply says, "it's from a journalist" therefore it must be undeniable fact? No! As I have shown, my opponent skews his words. I rephrased it, presented my argument, and my opponent completely dropped it. Please extend that argument throughout this round."
The fact alone that it was from a journalist doesn't make it infallible. What makes it less than refutable is that it isn't just some random quote scrounged from the depths of the internet. It was a more valid source than you give credit for.

"This argument, besides the fact that it falls under the 2nd scenario given and requires no extra scenario, is ridiculously based upon the notion that my opponent has tried to infer that animals can make concious decisions. CONDITIONED RESPONSE IS NOT A CONCIOUS DECISION. A conditioned response is equal to dropping a marble down a chute, it will fall down. Conditioned response shows an inkling of intelligence, however in no way does it classify animals close to human intelligence. It's incredibly ignorant of the idea of reason to assume this."
I have already accepted this but it is, as it still remains, a more suitable biproduct of the snd scenario.

"My opponent is skewing words in an appeal to the general audience, however I'm not arguing the morality of experimenting on animals, I'm arguing the morality of it versus the other available options. The most moral action is the action that ensures survival of the specie and well being of the specie, and as you can see I have clearly shown that animal-testing, the idea of animal testing, is morally acceptable within the given scenario. Testing on mentally handicapped people would not ensure survival, which we have accepted as the most important issue within a specie. Furthermore, my opponent makes many wild claims about laws, treatment, etc etc and posts a single video and a single quote to undeniable support his case. This is ludicrous, considering the fact that he said he was NOT discussing the United States when both of his links were within the United States... I fail to see the logic behind this"

I took your words as they were, they did not need my skewing for they were already in the order for me to use them to my advantage. My quoteS (For I've had several) are not just limited to the United States, though the one given hence was given to give an idea.

"So for the crystallization of my points, and in order to remove the falsehoods my opponent is trying to pin on my case, let me explain my entire case in the following paragraph.

There are three scenarios in which to test products:

1) Animal testing, in order to ensure the well being and survival of the human specie.
2) Human testing (regardless of willingness), for the following reason.
3) No testing."
We've been through this, taking a risk with something that has no say otherwise versus a willing candidate is an obvious choice.

And to refute your case in its entirety, that is, what your last argument was concluded on, if the human is willing to risk it's life, it's for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

"Finally, we are not arguing the morality of testing period. We're arguing the morality of animal testing versus the other options. As I have clearly shown, the other options are against natural instinct and what is most important to the human race."

Such as, If a man were to be given the choice: "Die or all of mankind is doomed"
Doomed as "to give judgment against : condemn"
The man, to further the human race, would have to choose death in order to benefit mankind. That is not to say experimentation will always lead to death but it puts it into perspective.

Though my opponent offers an in-depth and logical debate, I feel it is no more infallible than mine is. If anything, mine is closer to infallibility than my opponent's which is why I strongly encourage my judge to vote in affirmation of this resolution. Thank you and the best of luck to my opponent, it's been an enjoyable debate.
HadenQuinlan

Pro

"That is not an ignorant conclusion as I never once said animals are close to the thought process of humans. Therefore, you have no justification for cslling my point invalid or ignorant. It is a simple notion that if an animal has a thought process, we have to further prove it's thought process in order for you to be justified. That is unattainable at the present time."

Yes, unattainable. So we must assume that they do not, for the time being. Therefore, the resolution, which is spaced in real-time is based on the present science. So, you've just conceded this point to me.

"The fact alone that it was from a journalist doesn't make it infallible. What makes it less than refutable is that it isn't just some random quote scrounged from the depths of the internet. It was a more valid source than you give credit for."

No - the point I was trying to make is that it wasn't debating my case. It's like if I bring up a refutation to a religious argument for homosexual marriage when you were arguing that it devalues the idea of a standard american family. The quote doesn't hold relevance because the only way that it possibly could is if you skew my words to fit, which is why I frequently brought up that point.

"I took your words as they were, they did not need my skewing for they were already in the order for me to use them to my advantage. My quoteS (For I've had several) are not just limited to the United States, though the one given hence was given to give an idea."

I asked you to give me more evidence in my 2nd speech, evidence you failed to procure. Please stop skewing this in your favor, you've had 3 quotes. One of them is the quote from the journalist which I discuss above, one of them is on Pavlov's Dogs, a point you've already conceded to me, and your 3rd was about the United States.

"We've been through this, taking a risk with something that has no say otherwise versus a willing candidate is an obvious choice."

Willing candidate? You said that many animals undergo:

"pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs"

How many people would be willing to undergo such treatments? I don't think any at all, actually. I don't see how this point makes sense, there's no willing demographic to undergo the testing necessary in order to ensure safe products for the human race, so we look to the most efficient, best solution with the least moral obligation - animals.

"And to refute your case in its entirety, that is, what your last argument was concluded on, if the human is willing to risk it's life, it's for the betterment of mankind as a whole."

You haven't shown how any human would be willing to risk his life! You've given a SINGLE QUOTE from a SINGLE JOURNALIST which holds NO relevance and you expect me to except your case as infallible truth? There is no demographic to undergo the strenous testing required, so, as I said before, we pick the lesser of two evils - animals.

"Such as, If a man were to be given the choice: "Die or all of mankind is doomed"
Doomed as "to give judgment against : condemn"
The man, to further the human race, would have to choose death in order to benefit mankind. That is not to say experimentation will always lead to death but it puts it into perspective"

First off, the definition you give for doomed doesn't fit the statement you make, but I understand the general idea. This idea holds true, but if the man in experimentation is not faced with this ultimatum, he has the choice to NOT die, to NOT undergo experimentation and instead use animals. Therefore maintaining the survival of the human race and never endagering human rights.

"Though my opponent offers an in-depth and logical debate, I feel it is no more infallible than mine is. If anything, mine is closer to infallibility than my opponent's which is why I strongly encourage my judge to vote in affirmation of this resolution. Thank you and the best of luck to my opponent, it's been an enjoyable debate."

My opponent talks about infallibility, however he says my case has major flaws, he attempts to point them out by conceding to my points, skewing my words. Let me explain what has happened...

My opponent has dropped all of his contentions, backing up into the final, "Humans are willing". Besides the fact that he's dropped his entire case and has fallen back entirely upon a new contention, he's provided no conclusive evidence to support this claim. He also has not refuted the point I have given on natural instinct, a point which I wish to extend throughout the entire debate. At this point, my opponent rests upon an inconclusive contention with no evidence or logic backing it, and has already conceded one of his major contentions to Pro.

With the debate over, it is your job, the judges, to make the best decision. Please, do not judge off of personal bias, judge off of debating prowess - look at who has debated their case fully, has not dropped their contentions, who has constantly hammered the same points throughout the debate so well the other could not and did not refute them. It is your job to vote logically, so I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you!

~HQ
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
This debate was very hectic. We had 30 mins top to debate. Fun, though, good job PRO.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Why would anyone in their right minds vote for me here? It's rather unprecidented
Posted by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
I MEANT PRO, I MEANT PRO! In round two, I said, "You must vote Con" this is my first Pro debate on this website - so I messed up.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cjjavier3 9 years ago
cjjavier3
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
draxxtHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03