The Instigator
JosephBurtoft
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should people that are sentenced to execution be tested on for medical purposes instead of animals

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 2 votes the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 39585
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

JosephBurtoft

Pro

I Believe it is wrong to test on animals as they are defenceless creatures that have no say in the matter. However testing and Criminals such as: Murderers, Rapists, Paedophiles and Treason that would be better as 1) they will be killed anyway and 2) they maybe able to help themselves possible get off Death Row by helping
MysticEgg

Con

Thanks to Pro for debating this today!

Introduction

I will be arguing against the resolution and I will give reasons why we certainly should not test on death row prisoners for medical purposes. I will also be countering Pro's arguments. First, it is important to define the word "defenceless" to help avoid semantics. Defenceless is defined as: adjective|without defence of protection(...)|[e.g.]attacks on defenceless civilians.[1]


Rebuttals

Pro indicates that he doesn't approve of testing on animals because they are "defenceless creatures". However, people in prison are also defenceless. They cannot fight back any more than an animal could; they are outnumbered; they are out-armed, and they have no say in the matter once they have been sentenced to death. Therefore, for Pro to object to this argument; he must remove his own reason (or one of them) about why we shouldn't test on animals. However, to do this, my opponent gives little reason why we should ever switch, particularly when I come onto his other points below.

Secondly, Pro states that "they are going to die anyway". This is actually incorrect, although it might seem miffy at first. Not all prisoners on death row are necessarily going to die. For example, take Ronald Jones or Laurence Adams, who were both released.[2][3] In fact, over one hundred people have been released from America's death row alone![4]

Therefore, we can conclude that being on death row doesn't always mean that they're "going to die anyway" and thus my opponent's argument is refuted.

Lastly, Pro states that they could get out of death row by "helping". This seems a little loaded. First, this wouldn't excuse their crimes and, if you released people that were pure psychopaths, there is a chance that they will kill again. It is very counter intuitive and makes sending people to death row in the first place rather pointless. Pro's point is self-defeating.


Contention 1: Unethical
Experimenting on people without consent is unethical, and where they are or what they've done doesn't change this fact. They are still human, biologically speaking. It is hard for me to actually go further with this, as it is short and to the point. But, I will demonstrate the potential of unethical experiments on people that society forgets about, by pointing to history.[4] In the past, this sort of thing has been done, and it could be done again. It is immoral and unethical to expose human beings to this risk.

Back to Pro!

Source(s):

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]http://nodeathpenalty.org...
[3]http://www.nodp.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
JosephBurtoft

Pro

JosephBurtoft forfeited this round.
MysticEgg

Con

Ah well, extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
JosephBurtoft

Pro

JosephBurtoft forfeited this round.
MysticEgg

Con

Please, Pro. Return!
Debate Round No. 3
JosephBurtoft

Pro

JosephBurtoft forfeited this round.
MysticEgg

Con

"Will give different fonts for money." Please return!
Debate Round No. 4
JosephBurtoft

Pro

JosephBurtoft forfeited this round.
MysticEgg

Con

Sorry, everyone. I'll see you around and thank you for this debate (or lack, thereof).


J
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Thanks.
Posted by justthefacts 3 years ago
justthefacts
I think that Pro changed his mind. Good job, Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheUser 3 years ago
TheUser
JosephBurtoftMysticEggTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Nothing much to judge on. The Pro forfeited every single round after his opening statement.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
JosephBurtoftMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff