March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

Conduct Violations My opponent suggests I am protesting his definitions; however I have done no such thing. Pro accused me of discrimination in his last round. I agreed determining new criterion of rights is discriminatory. Tejretics is participating in this exploration with me, and in the very way he set up this debate and decided which animals to petition for, he has eliminated 90 percent of all animals we know of for consideration in all circumstances. If we are going to throw around the “discrimination” label, then I would like the voters to consider the degree of discrimination Pro is condoning, and consider that I am open to ascribing rights to any life forms capable of reason and have no preconceptions of what they may look like. Secondly, Pro has not denied his misconduct concerning his pre-clinical trials section during round 3. Rebuttals Ethics and Reason Pro asserts one animal life is equal to one human life – let us keep this in mind for later. It is true that I have been arguing for a few animals against many human lives, and by the definitions Pro has provided, that is exploitation for the benefit of humans. Pro concedes a few animals can be sacrificed for the greater good of many human animals by dropping this. Also, I do not see how the ability to suffer changes the argument from a utilitarian aspect. If a few animals must suffer for 100,000’s of humans to be saved from dying, then it is a valid logical choice. By definition, this would be exploiting the animals, since the humans are the one to benefit at the sacrifice of the animals. HuntingHunting for human pleasure may be unethical, but that is not the only reason individuals hunt and it is not one I have defended. Pro would like for us to believe there is no good reason to hunt, and as covered in my previous rounds, there are many benefits for animals and humans that come from hunting. I would like to remind the voters that Pro suggested in round 2: “Hunting can be discounted directly as it serves the sole purpose of sadistic human entertainment” Pro has now allowed for instances in which hunting can be morally ethical. I consider this to be a concession on this point. Vegetarianism This is the point I would like for voters to consider the statement of my opponent’s that I pointed out at the beginning of this round: “I would also like to say that what I am implying here is that one animal's life is equal to one human's life. ” Pro has acknowledged it is fair for primitive bushmen to kill animals as, ”it is necessary for their survival”. This is a direct contradiction to ‘all lives are equal’ he posited at the beginning of his round 3 argument! Pro is arguing for my side at this point, and he concedes that there are circumstances in which humans may exploit animals. As for Pro’s source concerning the cost comparison of vegetarianism vs meat, it acknowledges vegetarian substitutes are more costly than the meat they replace. It is hardly feasible for an individual to eat black beans every day, and if we are to consider a vegetarian diet, then we must have variety. The article I supplied last round does exactly that. “Keep in mind, though, that you have to be smart about your vegetarian purchases to make going vegetarian a cost benefit. For example, meat substitutes can be just as expensive as, or more expensive than, meat. By "meat substitute," we mean products made to resemble meat both in appearance and texture. For example, veggie burgers, vegetable nuggets and veggie crumbles fall into this category. Soy-based meat substitute products can run you up to $7.00 a pound (e. g. Morningstar Farms Chik Patties). If you plan your vegetarian meals around meat substitutes like these, it's likely you won't save much money by becoming a vegetarian. ” [1] Pre-clinical trials My opponent argues for non-systemic testing methods once again. I have already covered how these types of test simply cannot completely replace animal testing. In-vitro and synthetic skin tests do not, and cannot, show interactions between systems. Without knowing these vital multi-system interactions, we cannot predict the result of ingesting a particular drug, and that is dangerous to humans. These tests can diminish the need for animals, however, they cannot replace animals for crucial systemic testing. Pro has provided no way, outside of (animal reliant) micro-dosing, which provides this necessary systemic testing. My opponent has failed to establish how animal testing is unnecessary. We will hand it back over to Pro now. I look forward to our final round, sir! [1] . http://recipes.howstuffworks.com...