The Instigator
logical-master123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whiteflame
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

We should have lab rats in labatories

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 81107
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

logical-master123

Con

8k, 72 hours to post, 7 point- system

This debate is for Whiteflame. If you are not whiteflame you cannot accept. If you do, points will go to me.


Defintions

lab rat: A laboratory rat is a rat of the species Rattus norvegicus (brown rat) which is bred and kept for scientific research. Laboratory rats have served as an important animal model for research in psychology, medicine, and other fields.

labatories: a room or building with special equipment for doing scientific experiments and tests

Rules

1. No forfeiting

2. No trolling

3. No posting arguments in first or last round

4. If you are not over the Elo of 2000, you cannot vote

5. If you do not follow thse rules, you lose.

Sturcture

1. Acceptance

2. Arguments

3. Rebuttals, Mini Arguments

4. Defending Case, Conclusion

Lets have a good debate Whiteflame!

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

whiteflame

Pro

I accept. Looking forward to some awesome science debate.
Debate Round No. 1
logical-master123

Con

Thank you Whiteflame for accepting this challenge. I will post my arguments first.



Arguments



1. The rats might die due to the harm and risk of the chemicals or experiments



This argument is just simple.The rats might die due to the risk of these dangerous experiments. If these scientists test these chemicals, do you think they will succeed every time? No. They will sometimes fail and make mistakes. What happens? They test those chemicals on poor mice who did nothing and just got captured. If there was a mistake in the process, definitely the mouse who got that substance will get hurt and possibly die. This is just cruel to these mouses.



This is just the mice perspectives of being caught.



One day, I was in my house eating cheese near a laboratory, when someone saw me and sold me. Unluckily I was bought by a scientist. He let me in a lab and with his cage. Then he put weird chemicals in me. I started to be weird, fascinating. Then something got mistaken in the process. I turned very bad and died.



This is just a story that might have been the mouse life.



Mice are animals and are in the animal kingdom. They are just small creatures that we think are bad and don’t really mind them. However those animals are the same as dogs. They are all animals. They are all animals just different. In our perspectives or perspectives of humans, we think that humans are the best animal and rule the world. Probably they rule the world, but they are not the best animals in the worlds. Humans are just one of the billion different types of creatures in the world. This is why animals are animals. They have different features like a human and a mouse. All these little things like ants are barely noticed or some tiny fish. But they are same like us and also you Whiteflame. Even though they are not noticed they are part of the animals and animal kingdom. This is why we should leave these animals alone because they might have a risk of dying, however this animals dies by us, it is same as mice killing us.



2. Cruelty



If you have lab rats, that is just cruel. These animals have their own freedom to do what they want.





This is what happened to about 100 million mouses that were raised and dead. These mice had no reason to be dead if it was not for these weird people just stomping in putting these mice in cages and testing these chemicals we do not know is dangerous or not dangerous. Then if it is dangerous these mice get and unfortunate death. These mice are just poor. Pro might think that rats are harms to people, however rats are animals also and they might think us humans are big threats also. This shows that humans are just cruel in these situations and testing it on these innocent rats.



Solution:



I have two solutions. My first solution is that people should get tested because they made the things. Secondly, why do we have to test these things to any kind of animal? What if the earth makes a robot which has human feelings and instincts a human has. We can test them which is no harm because they are not living.



Please read and article I post below in the sources.



3. These animals have the freedom of choice.



This is expanded of what I said in my first and second argument. First of all, animals have freedom to do what they want to do. No one forces humans to get chemical shots and have a risk to die, why not animals? Like I said, these animals are innocent creatures who just want to escape out of their own pity deaths. Instead we destroy their pity lives. Like animals being kept in cages, these mice have the freedom to go out like what the other mice in the world are doing



Even though this example is nonsense, it is like this.



Imagine that one day, us humans got ruled by mice. They needed to make a these things in their laboratory. However they didn’t know how to test it on. They decided humans. They suddenly forced and trapped these humans and put them in their labs. They test these chemicals things and soon we die.



This is basically the switched thing us humans are doing. Our Con team thinks that we should stop this and make no more lab rats. This shows that even these little creatures can be important.



No this goes on to the real argument. Humans have rights and freedom. Long time ago they didn’t. Right now even though we don’t have slavery, we have lab rats. Lab rats are basically the same as slavery. Basically we are telling these rats to be tested and they might die, but so what, who cares? They just get a new rat. I think that these rats should have freedoms of not having these tests.



4. Lab Rats give cancer!!!



This argument is very short but however interesting. It is about lab rats giving cancer.



Dr. Sherry Rogers says, "They merely give rats one dose of a common pesticide to cause Parkinson's disease in them! Scientists use the same recipe to create cancer in rats for research. They give them one dose of a pesticide or related chemical."



Lab rats give disease. These things the scientists use can cause Parkinson disease! This is one reason why this is dangerous for humans.



Humans are giving these rats a dose of pesticide to create Parkinson disease. This might spread to the humans. This is why I think that humans should not touch rats so we do not get Parkinson Disease.



Conclusion



These were my arguments. My first argument was about the rats having a risk to die. My next argument was about Cruelty of what we are doing to these rats. My third argument was that those animals have a freedom to go away. My last argument was about cancer of lab rats.



Thank you.

Now to you Whiteflame!

Sources

http://www.peta.org...

http://foodmatters.tv...

http://www.realclearscience.com...



whiteflame

Pro

Alright, thanks to logical-master123 for challenging me to this debate.

I'll start with some overviews.

OV1) Let's be clear what this debate is about. The question here is whether or not lab rats should be used in laboratories, and as such, I will specifically defend the use of lab rats bred for the purpose. But it should also be noted what I'm not defending. I'm not forced to defend animal cruelty, nor am I required to defend specific labs or types of experiements. As long as I show that lab rats should be used in some laboratories, that's sufficient for me to win this debate.

OV2) The burden of proof in this debate is on Con, since he's arguing against the status quo. He's stating that we must necessarily exclude lab rats as a type of animal testing in the laboratory. In fact, his case applies to all lab animals and not just rats, and as such he is required to either defend a better means for accomplishing these goals, or eschew lab tests as a whole.

Onto rebuttals.

1. Death and harm

Con's C1-C3 all might as well come under this heading.

Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though.

Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test?

Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans.

Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives.

2. Lab Rats Spread Disease

Con doesn't seem to realize that neither any cancer nor Parkinson's Disease are infectious.[2, 3] Unless we give an infectious disease to rodents and then don't take adequate precautions (they do [4]), there's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents.

3. Con's "Solution"

Con says we should test in humans. First, we actually do " they're called clinical trials.[5] What Con is advocating for is extending the testing of drugs to humans in preclinical trials. Second, Con doesn't realize that preclinical studies are safety tasting. What he's advocating here is for those studies to go on first in humans, which will either encounter the same problems as with rodents (only this time with people, who can sue for damages), or no one will touch it, which will bring drug development to a halt. Third, studies in humans aren't necessarily good substitutes. Understanding treatment over a lifetime and intergenerationally can be very important. That's something we're able to do in rats very easily, but in humans it would take decades of monitoring.

He says that we may one day be able to test in robots. First, we can't do this now, and so this suggestion is merely a science fiction dream. Second, even if we get robots akin to animals, they will never perfectly simulate a living system, The inherent complexity of that system will always be beyond our understanding.

What Con's case amounts to is basically one large appeal to emotion. He presents a nice picture, talks about all the poor rodents, and basically ignores the issue of why we use rodents in labs at all. Now, onto my case.

To be clear, what I'm arguing for is a continuation of the status quo. Treatment of animals should continue to be regulated to ensure that they're housed well and that they suffer as little as possible. With that, onto the why.

1. Harms to other animals

Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab.
2. Importance of rats to studies

I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost.

3. Why we should care

We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats.

The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear.

With that, I hand the debate back to Con.

1. http://bit.ly...
2. http://bit.ly...
3. http://1.usa.gov...
4. http://bit.ly...
5. http://1.usa.gov...
6. http://bit.ly...
7. http://bit.ly...
8. http://bit.ly...
9. http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
logical-master123

Con

Thank you for writing your arguments.

Observations

1. Con is saying that this is about rats not mice. This is true. It is just that I am more familiar with mice so I accidentally wrote mice instead of rats. Voters and also Whiteflame should not mind that. It is just a thing I wrote wrong.

2. The burden of proof is shared equally, but mostly on me.


Rebuttals

1. In Pro's first arguments which was Harms to Animals, I will just write it here

" 1. Harms to other animals

Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don"t replace them with mice, they"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren"t bred in the lab."

This is true. However why rats? There should not be any rats in these labatories. This is true. Even though it harms any other animals, why do we need to harm rats? Right now Pro missed that case and just said it harms other animals not how those things that harms those rats.

This is an brief explanation. Pro is saying in this argument that if we do not use rats, we have to use other species and they might get harmed. However, don't the rats get harmed then? They get harmd too. Right now Pro is saying they don't care of those rats if they die or not in the labs and saying it harms other animals when rats are animals too and they should not be harmed. This si just not that I hate or like rats, (In my opion I don't really like rats) but this is plain nonsense even though it hurt those animals, why wouldn't it hurt rats?

2. This is Pro's second argument. I will post it in my argument and rebut it.

" 2. Importance of rats to studies

I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost."

Okay. Pro's point of this argument was that these rats are physically changed so that they get tested easily. However, the rats can't really change. They can't really make them good for experiments, it is just that they are better than others. Right now I am saying that there should not be those lab rats because of the bad and cruelty.

3. This is Pro's third argument. I will paste it in my argument

" 3. Why we should care

We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats.

The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear."


Right now what Pro is saying that we should protect these humans and have no choice but to use these rats. In the Status Quo I forgot to write about, these days the rats are in danger with these labs, he is saying there is no much of an choice to change the Status Quo. Our team will change it.

Now I will go in this rebbutals of this argument of Pro's

Why is people's living the most important. How about other animals like us? Just to say that is really rude and we are not taking care of these animals at all.


With my rebuttals, I will hand this debate back to Pro.
whiteflame

Pro

Alright, thanks again, and let"s get into this.

Just a note: Pro and Con are often confused in this round, but I"ll straighten it out.

Observations:

OV1. Actually, my point here was defining the bounds of my arguments, which Con isn"t responsive to. Again, I don"t have to defend animal cruelty, specific labs, or certain types of experiments. As long as the use of rats is net beneficial in any laboratory setting (and I"d argue it is in most settings), it"s sufficient reason to affirm.

OV2. "The burden of proof is shared equally, but mostly on me." I agree with the latter " the BoP is mostly on Con. I pointed out that his case applies to all animals. This is going to become important as I go back through it, but he essentially has two choices. He can either argue that just rats should be excluded, in which case he has to explain why rats are special, or all animals should be excluded, in which case he has to provide some meaningful alternative. I"ll show how he accomplishes neither goal.

Now, onto Con"s rebuttals of my case.

1. Harm to other animals

"Even though it harms any other animals, why do we need to harm rats? Right now Pro missed that case and just said it harms other animals not how those things that harms those rats."

I think Con"s misunderstanding the burden that he"s taken on his with arguments. It"s not my burden to show that rats are widely used in research sciences, though I have done that. It"s not my burden to show that rats are special, though I would argue that I have by pointing to the numerous advantages of using them (namely, short lifetimes, genetic variability, and the ability to model a large number of human diseases). None of this gets any response from Con, but even if he did, Con would still have failed in his burden. It"s up to HIM to show that there"s something special about rats that should preclude research scientists using them in lab settings.

Why is that? Because without doing so, all Con"s managing is to replace rats with some other creature. Since he"s no longer defending mice with his argument, I could easily say that mice will replace them. Then they"re the ones that will be suffering through these experiments. Why is that world better than the current one?

But I don"t have to argue that. I could argue that they"re replaced by dogs, primates and pigs that aren"t bred in the lab. That means some will have to be captured, meaning that they will go from a free state to a captive state. I"ve already argued that this is worse than being bred in captivity, something Con has not addressed.

"Right now Pro is saying they don't care of those rats if they die or not in the labs"

I never said this. I admitted that harms to animals like rats are a moral hazard. Again, I"m not arguing for animal cruelty, and I think that any animal in a research science setting should be treated with the utmost care and, if they should have to suffer, have that suffering reduced as much as possible. I"m not a monster. That being said, animals do have to be used in a lab setting at some point. Something"s going to be subjected to experiments, and that something will suffer and die sometimes. All Con"s doing is changing which animals will be subject to this.

2. Importance of rats to studies

"the rats can't really change. They can't really make them good for experiments, it is just that they are better than others."

Again, Con concedes that rats "are better than others", and thus that their widespread use as a research subject is justified. All he questions is whether we should be treating them cruelly. That"s not the point of this contention. There are clear benefits to using rats in a number of pharmaceutical studies and studies of various treatment methods. Con grants that these are true. The loss of these animals from research laboratories is therefore a major harm to these studies.

3. Why we should care

"In the Status Quo I forgot to write about, these days the rats are in danger with these labs, he is saying there is no much of an choice to change the Status Quo. Our team will change it."

This is unclear. What options is he providing? So far, his alternatives have been to use humans and robots, yet the former is clearly more difficult to employ in a research setting, presents major financial concerns, places a number of new and significant moral hazards into the fray, and the latter doesn"t exist and won"t exist for the foreseeable future. What will Con"s "team" change about this situation? How will he solve for it? He"s simply not going to be able to do so, and all he"s doing is changing which animals get tested on.

Con"s really dropping this entire contention. He"s not explaining why it"s beneficial to drop research off for the sake of this moral hazard, which I"ve pointed out is a major risk of implementing his case. He"s providing no reason why rats are special. He doesn"t respond to the realities that this research saves many lives, both human and animal. These outweigh any nebulous moral harm to rats.

Now, onto Pro"s case.

His defense of his case is extremely threadbare. He doesn"t respond to any of my arguments directly, and just leaves us with some questions I"ve already answered.

"Why is people's living the most important."

Because human beings are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. Because human beings are the only ones capable of making these drugs and thus protecting both human and animal populations from dangerous diseases and disorders that could wipe us all out. Because we"re human and self-preservation should be first and foremost in our minds " we can"t protect the animals if we"re not here, anyway. But it"s not like Con"s even arguing that human lives are of equal importance to all other lives. He"s just arguing that the lives of rats are more important, and treating all other animals as lesser.

"How about other animals like us?"

Again, this is not a question for me to answer. It"s up to you to explain why we shouldn"t do any animal testing if that"s your argument. Up til now, you"ve made it clear that you"re just arguing against using rats. I would argue that animals like chimpanzees, which do have cognitive abilities similar to ours, should be spared as much death and suffering as possible, and yet Con risks subjecting them to more by removing a much simpler organism from labs.

"Just to say that is really rude and we are not taking care of these animals at all."

I"m not sure what Con is referring to here, though nothing I"ve said is rude, nor have I spurned care for any animals.

What Con drops, however, can be seen as an unwillingness to care. He doesn"t care about safety testing of drugs, either wanting that testing to come to a complete halt or have it occur in humans who cannot consent to unknown safety hazards. He doesn"t care that there are many drugs that have come from studies in rats that would no longer be pursued or would be less effective in other animals. He doesn"t care that many future rats won"t even exist " won"t even know what life is " without these labs constantly breeding them. Moreover, since Con is dropping the view that they spread disease, not to mention his own alternatives, we can see that he"s not providing any meaningful reasons for voters to negate.

With that, I await my opponent's final round.
Debate Round No. 3
logical-master123

Con

Thank you for your rebuttals and defending your case. It was a very fun debate. I will defend my case, and state my conclusion, then it is my opponent's turn and the debate ends. I just want to say that it was very fun.

Observations

1. True. The BOP is shared mostly but is more on my side because I am the instignator of this debate and also of many other reasons.

Pro's case.

In here I will post all my opponents case's and defend them and rebut them.

"1. Death and Harm.

Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though.

Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test?

Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans.

Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives."

This was Pro's first rebuttal. This was just a mistake form me as I said it at my third argument, I just wrote mice instead of rats because it is much easier to write and also say.

I know that these mice/rats are not getting actually captured. But then there is a big picture of how they got them. They probably got bought. However they might got stolen. That is basically getting stolen from.

Pro just said that I was unclear of how I did not show I told they were poorly treated.

This is what I wrote in my argument.

2. Cruelty



If you have lab rats, that is just cruel. These animals have their own freedom to do what they want.


This is what happened to about 100 million mouses that were raised and dead. These mice had no reason to be dead if it was not for these weird people just stomping in putting these mice in cages and testing these chemicals we do not know is dangerous or not dangerous. Then if it is dangerous these mice get and unfortunate death. These mice are just poor. Pro might think that rats are harms to people, however rats are animals also and they might think us humans are big threats also. This shows that humans are just cruel in these situations and testing it on these innocent rats.

3. These animals have the freedom of choice.



This is expanded of what I said in my first and second argument. First of all, animals have freedom to do what they want to do. No one forces humans to get chemical shots and have a risk to die, why not animals? Like I said, these animals are innocent creatures who just want to escape out of their own pity deaths. Instead we destroy their pity lives. Like animals being kept in cages, these mice have the freedom to go out like what the other mice in the world are doing



Even though this example is nonsense, it is like this.



Imagine that one day, us humans got ruled by mice. They needed to make a these things in their laboratory. However they didn’t know how to test it on. They decided humans. They suddenly forced and trapped these humans and put them in their labs. They test these chemicals things and soon we die.



This is basically the switched thing us humans are doing. Our Con team thinks that we should stop this and make no more lab rats. This shows that even these little creatures can be important.



No this goes on to the real argument. Humans have rights and freedom. Long time ago they didn’t. Right now even though we don’t have slavery, we have lab rats. Lab rats are basically the same as slavery. Basically we are telling these rats to be tested and they might die, but so what, who cares? They just get a new rat. I think that these rats should have freedoms of not having these tests.



This was my argument of my second and third reasons that were about cruelty and freedom of rats. Also just think about it. Do you want your life to be depended on the human's experiments of your death or living?


2. Cancer

Yes I know this is not infected to us humans. But what if any cancer not found? There is also other cancer that might be infected. Also these things will happen to the mice.

There is really now cure for the Parkison Disease. If might infect you. This is why doing these things are dangerous.

Conclusion

Thank you for your debate Whiteflame. It was fun. I think you voters should vote for me because I think I had okay arguments. However, voters just vote on which team you think was stronger and who you think was better, however...

We Urge you to vote for Con!
whiteflame

Pro

Thanks again to Con for the debate.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on rebuttal since almost all of Con's points this round are either rehashes of his old arguments, or literal copy/pasting of those arguments. My responses to those still stand virtually untouched.

Just a few points here and there.

First, Con accepts that he has the burden of proof. Hold him to it.

Second, note that my response to his first argument wasn't solely focused on confusing rats and mice. I talked a lot about the importance of animal testing, and why lab-bred rats (Rattus norvegicus, the brown rat, is lab bred by Con's own R1 definition) are still more moral to use than other animals that have previously known freedom and would be born and live their lives in the absence of scientific research. The view that rats are somehow stolen is solely Con's assertion, as there are many commonly used legal avenues for purchasing lab rats and for breeding them in your own lab.[http://www.criver.com...]

Third, Con's now asserting that there could potentially be some form of cancer or Parkinson's Disease that could become infectious and somehow transfer from rats to humans. I don't think this is particularly believable considering that that's never happened and that there's no agent, let alone an infectious agent, that directly causes either one, but even if you buy that, all that changes about this research is that it's done in BSL3 or BSL4 labs, where dangerous diseases are prevented from spreading. Con dropped my response about biosafety labs, which are there specifically for this purpose.

Alright, so with those out of the way, let's get down to business. Why are you voting Pro in this debate?

Well, Con's locked himself into two potential avenues, neither of which he's been particularly willing to come down on completely. I'll explain how I'm winning in both scenarios.

The first scenario, and the one voters should buy because he makes a point of saying that his argument wasn't meant to apply to mice, is that rats alone should be removed from labs. In arguing this, he fails to recognize that all of his arguments apply to other animals. Worse yet, many of them apply better to other research animals. There's no reason why we should grant the protections to rats that he seeks, and not to mice, pigs, dogs, and chimpanzees. Yet, since he's doing nothing to address the system itself, he's simply shrugging the research burden off onto these other animals. I've shown how this is worse by encouraging more, not less, of the same harms he presents. Best case scenario for him, his arguments are hypocritical, providing protections to one animal while leaving all others vulnerable. Worse case scenario, he's condemning other animals to yet worse fates, requiring widespread trapping of wild creatures and harming more animals that are closer to sentience while denying life to millions of rats.

I've shown how rats are special with regards to their ability to advance scientific research, and why they're so broadly used. I've explained how what they contribute to scientific advancements is beneficial to humans as well as all animals. I've examined why humans should be preferred over rats (and all other life, for that matter), and therefore why sacrifices must be made for a greater good.

The second scenario is that Con is actually arguing against all animal testing. While voters shouldn't buy this due to Con's regular attempts to avoid directly arguing it, it's actually worse for his case. He's provided 0 effective alternatives, failing to defend his human studies and robots alternatives. I've explained how both are completely untenable and how the former is actually less moral than status quo. That means that Con is actively seeking to condemn all of scientific research that involves animals to extinction, thereby destroying all future products that could conceivably end a range of diseases and disorders in humans and animals. By trying to protect a few, Con is condemning all.

In either case, I've clearly explained both the faults in my opponent's case and the benefits of continuing the status quo. All of Con's arguments come to little more than broad appeals to emotion that ignore the basic harms of thinking with a bleeding heart. Lab rats play an integral role in what researchers do to advance the sciences, and to remove them from that role has the potential to do more harm than can possibly be estimated. Whichever scenario Con is seeking, he's risking far too much for what is only a nebulous good at best.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Labratories . :P

I like how Con said labatories as though he was alluding to my assertion without taking pleasure in it, to not make a joke of his end of the debate.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Zanomi3// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I believe conduct was the same between the two opponents, as well as the use of sources. However, I do think that Spelling and Grammar leans towards Pro as there were several confusing grammatical errors on Con's end. I also believe that the arguments on Pro's side were stronger. Even disregarding the possible confusion on BOP or the scope of the argument, I think that the arguments put forth on Pro's end were of higher quality and over all held more water.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does need to examine individual arguments given and not simply generalize about the arguments given. If Pro made better arguments, then the voter must examine which arguments were made better and why.
************************************************************************
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ax123man// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Arguments, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: see comments for RFD

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explains the decision by looking at several rounds of argumentation and assessing the arguments of both sides. Some discretion is allowed with the S&G point, and while the voter could have been clearer regarding his assessment of this particular point, it is sufficiently justified.
************************************************************************
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
okay, you can still put the tomorrow?
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
I would have also voted whiteflame although I do not have time to put up a long RFD and I think that whiteflame has already won due to 2 votes in his favor.
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
I hope everyone gives some good RFD.
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
thanks for your RFD.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
RFD:

The predicament for Con was the issue that the elimination of rats would simply be substituted with other animals. This would either mean Con needs to argue that animals should not be used at all or that rats have a special case above other animals. Con's bringing mice into the debate was not good you can't really fix it be saying it was a mistake. By R3, Pro had not only locked down the need for rats quite well, but shown how eliminating rats would simply lead to use of mice and others.

Pro also briefly covered covered species based rights in R2. I also liked how Pro turned the debate on the idea of pre-clinical vs clinical to show how, if all non-human animals were eliminated from testing, then either some humans would need to be tested (pre-clinical) or drug development would be ended.

Regarding the BOP Pro's interpretation of this being on Con was correct. Saying " The burden of proof is shared equally, but mostly on me." didn't help and is confusing.

I often found Con's arguments hard to follow. For example, in R3, rebuttal to #1, the "This is true. However why rats?" paragraph. First, why ever say "This is true", especially when it's unclear what your conceding. Second, I can't figure what the point is here. Con seems to miss Pro's point altogether.

In R3, Con's rebuttal to #2 was equally poor, being a simple assertion trying to counter science backed by sources. Same with #3: "Our team will change it" isn't an argument.

In R3, Pro solidified the pickle Con was in. Pro also solidified human rights as special in R3. Pro also nicely turned Con's "caring" argument.

Pro easily wins arguments. S&G to pro, as I frequently found Con's grammar hard to follow.
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
you can't vote? You are over 2000.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
I'll put up a vote on this once it enters the voting period (if I meet the elo restrictions).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
logical-master123whiteflameTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments for RFD