The Instigator
What50
Pro (for)
The Contender
Teen_driven_crazy
Con (against)

We should torture animals for the benefits for humans.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Teen_driven_crazy has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 100714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

What50

Pro

This is a debate whether we should torture animals for the benefits for humans.

Rules:
No Ad hominhem attacks
No insults
No racism
Be sure you are willing to debate fully
Burden of Proof shall be shared.

Rounds:
Round 1 is acceptance Con can say some comments about me but no insults Round 2 is we post our arguments
Round 3 we will rebuttal each others arguments.
Teen_driven_crazy

Con

I accept, while praying this is a joke. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
What50

Pro

To start of this is not a joke. This is my belief. This is 100% passion. I hope my opponent feels as much passionate as I am doing this debate.

Now what if their is a situation in which if we torture Animals it can provide benefits for all humans. For example if we cruelty test and torture a animal but they have the cure for cancer would you do it? I certainty would. We can use that information to save millions of humans lives of constant suffering.

Let's look at this way. If both a animal and a human is getting tortured and feeling the same pain who would you save? I would choose a human. This is not bias a human's life is much more important than a animals life. For one we live longer compared to animals. Humans experience more pain than animals due to our longer lifespan. A animal is not expect to do great things. A human's life is much more valuable due to our ingenuity. A animal isn't gonna construct large buildings but a human can. This is why a human's life is much more valuable than a animal's life.

It might seem immoral here but the thing is we are human. They are not. We are far more superior than animals. This is not subjective this is a fact. If there is any situation in which if you have to torture a animal that gives every human a benefit by god I will do it. If I have to painfully stab a animal but it will get us one step closer to solve world hunger by god I will do it. On balance the pain of one animal is bad compared to a benefit for every human on earth.

I am seem like a evil person here but we really don't need animals other than hunting purposes. Yes I understand pets but they are merely emotional comfort than they are really needed. A man won't die if they don't have a pet. So yes I say we are far more superior than any other of those animals. Look I understand you animal lovers. I love animals too but they are really not needed in today society's. What if we kill every animal my opponent might say. To that I must say if I can't eat meat I might as well eat plants.

Animals are a lot like us. Both humans and animals do things that will benefit their species only. Animals attack other animals for their family. We kill animals to feed our family too. If a animal has to make a choice to torture a human to benefit all their species they would do it in a instant. Am I no different for suggesting a action that will make our species live much more longer than usual.

Survival of the fittest. As I said we are much more superior to animals. If we have to kill animals or even torture them to improve our species we will do it. Many people have done it. Am I no different for suggesting something that will again advance our species. No I am not. This is about our species advancement and survival. If we torture animals because it benefits us we will do it.

In conclusion I am not different than animals. This is about our survival and advancement for human kind.
Teen_driven_crazy

Con

Yes, I would test an animal if they had the cure for cancer. But I would also find a good way to do it, one that doesn't hurt the animal. Just because animals are not human does not mean that they don't feel pain, or have at least some basic intelligence. I've seen dogs, for example, that understand over 1000 human words, and they(dogs) communicate with each other as well, mostly through body language but their growling and howling has meaning to each other to. I'd like to see a human that can understand 100 sequences of dolphin "speech" and imitate right back. You also said "If I have to painfully stab a[n] animal but it will get us one step closer to solve world hunger by god I will do it." We already are. We kill over 56 million animals a year in the U.S. alone, not even including fish and other sea creatures, which measure in the TONNES. But we aren't giving much of that to solve world hunger, are we? We just send it to our nice, expensive restaurants to fill the bellies of fat rich people.

As well as all this, you decided to write: "A man won't die if [he doesn't] they don't have a pet." But what if it is one of those bomb-sniffing dogs? Or one that will detect cancer, fire, or when he's about to have a stroke? Pets can be very necessary to people's lives, I know from someone that visited the White House that they have gun/bomb sniffing dogs in security, which probably save our president's life daily.

So what right do we humans have, besides evolving faster(which is really no right at all) to torture and kill animals, ripping them apart at birth so kids can dissect(translation: utterly destroy) them, or stab them for fancy restaurants? Are we really better than them, when we kill for sport and riches while they hunt for food for their young? Are humans so superior?
Debate Round No. 2
What50

Pro

I hope Con understands that round 3 is where he should refute my arguments. He should of posted his main arguments on round 2 but has ignored the rounds of the debate. I suggest voters to give conduct to one side due to Con ignoring the rounds.
I will refute my opponents rebuttal.

" Yes, I would test an animal if they had the cure for cancer. But I would also find a good way to do it, one that doesn't hurt the animal. "
To find the effects of a animal that has cancer. We first has to give the animals cancer or the animal has cancer in the first place. Than you study them. You can try to do cross sectional studies to the animal but again the animal has to have cancer thus they are suffering. It is impossible to find a way that doesn't hurt the animal.

" Just because animals are not human does not mean that they don't feel pain, or have at least some basic intelligence. I've seen dogs, for example, that understand over 1000 human words, and they(dogs) communicate with each other as well, mostly through body language but their growling and howling has meaning to each other to. I'd like to see a human that can understand 100 sequences of dolphin "speech" and imitate right back."
May I ask my opponent where they get the link to dogs understanding over 1k human words. I agree dogs can feel pain but I must ask each animal feels pain differently. I am suggesting torturing animals because as humans we know what pain feels like to us thus we feel more empathetic to humans than animals. We would save our fellow man from torture because we know what pain is but I must say we don't know how dogs feel pain. This is a moral choice rather than torturing man to have benefits we use animals to torture to find benefits.

"We kill over 56 million animals a year in the U.S. alone, not even including fish and other sea creatures, which measure in the TONNES. But we aren't giving much of that to solve world hunger, are we? We just send it to our nice, expensive restaurants to fill the bellies of fat rich people."

Even if we give it to fat rich people we are still benefiting humans. Even if we kill the animals we still got plants in which we can eat instead. Does it realy matter we still benefit humans even though we are killing those animals.

"But what if it is one of those bomb-sniffing dogs? Or one that will detect cancer, fire, or when he's about to have a stroke? Pets can be very necessary to people's lives, I know from someone that visited the White House that they have gun/bomb sniffing dogs in security, which probably save our president's life daily."

Those are not pets. They are service dogs. Specifically for cancer,fire,or stroke. They are by definition not a pet but a service or working dog. The dogs that sniff bombs are detection dogs. They are not pets. There dogs that work.

"So what right do we humans have, besides evolving faster(which is really no right at all) to torture and kill animals, ripping them apart at birth so kids can dissect(translation: utterly destroy) them, or stab them for fancy restaurants? Are we really better than them, when we kill for sport and riches while they hunt for food for their young? Are humans so superior?"

So what do you mean as a right to kill them for fancy in our restaurant. We are feeding us. We need food. And how do we get food we kill animals or get it from plants. Animals do it too. They do the same dissect,bite,or even slowly eat the animal alive just so they can eat them. So what cats kill for fun too without even eating it. Cats kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds every year.

Humans are so superior. We build buildings,invent new things that benefits us,gain new knowledge,even know the planets itself. Has a animal every built a empire. No but humans did. We are superior of our knowledge,ingenuity and our weapons. We can kill every animal in the world if we want.

Cites and Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.cancer.net...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by What50 10 months ago
What50
Why?
Posted by Teen_driven_crazy 10 months ago
Teen_driven_crazy
I had to quit.
Posted by Teen_driven_crazy 10 months ago
Teen_driven_crazy
Sorry, I misread your post. You never said we couldn't do rebuttals in any other round.
Posted by Teen_driven_crazy 10 months ago
Teen_driven_crazy
I did refute your arguments. Just because you didn't read my argument to find them(they weren't in quotation marks, which is probably why you didn't notice them) does not mean I didn't.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.