The Instigator
ranchg
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Should we be testing animals for medical research?

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,040 times Debate No: 18185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

ranchg

Pro

People are the first priority and animals are second to that. Testing on animals is beneficial because many cures for illnesses and diseases have been discovered while doing so. The animals usually do not suffer and have a painless death when they are used for medical research.
http://wtnnews.com...
http://www.animalport...
http://www.idebate.org...
socialpinko

Con

Medical research: the use of animals in a careful study of a subject, which may be related to the health or other welfare of animals of the same or other species, including humans.[1]

Should: ought

In this debate, as it was not brought up beforehand, my opponent's burden as the affirmative will be to provide sufficient ethical justification for use of animals in medical research. My burden, as contender, will in turn be to point out the issues with the affirmative case, bring my own superior case, or both. As my opponent has outlined a preliminary case already, I will use this round not only for framing the debate but also to respond to my opponent's case. My opponent's case for animal testing is insufficient for any objective reader to be swayed. His case consists entirely of presuppositions with no necessary justification.

Contention 1: "People are the first priority and animals are second to that."

My opponent's first point is entirely presupposed. He does not bring any real case for the moral protection of humans but not of animals. As the affirmative in this debate, it will be his burden to show why this is so.

Contention 2: "Testing on animals is beneficial because many cures for illnesses and diseases have been discovered while doing so."

My opponent's second point entirely rests on the faulty presupposition of his first point. Without justification for why humans ought to be more highly morally valued than animals, the allegedly positive effects cannot be used as any justification. In order for this point to be valid, my opponent will have to justify his first point.

This point would be the same as me claiming, without good reason, that whites have moral value and all other races do not. Therefore, white needs should be valued more highly than those of people of other races. Now since my claim of white superiority is unfounded, any conclusions I make from it in themselves lack justification. I can't say that forced medical research on Asian people is okay because it helps white people unless I demonstrate beforehand that whites should be more highly valued than other races.

Contention 3: "The animals usually do not suffer and have a painless death when they are used for medical research."

This point is entirely irrelevant to my opponent's case. For my opponent's first point, if proved to be sound, would mean that the suffering of an animal would not make any difference in whether or not we should experiment on them for any positive effect on any human would outweigh automatically the suffering of an animal as humans have moral value and animals do not. Either animals have moral value or they do not. If my opponent thinks they have at least some, as he has implied by his third contentino, then he should bring a case for what gives something or someone moral worth to begin with.

[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ranchg

Pro

ranchg forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend refutations. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
ranchg

Pro

ranchg forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Seemed promising but oh well. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ranchgsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
ranchgsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by con and a forfeit from pro.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
ranchgsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
ranchgsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Forfeit of multiple rounds by Pro, no argument provided.