Human beings are justified in killing animals for the resources animals provide.

I'm honestly just happy that there was a response at all. (It is a sad fact that too many people on this site start debates they never intend to finish. ) Anyway, let's jump into it! Animal TestingMy opponent claims that animal trials in drug testing are no longer necessary due to emerging technology that allows researchers to grow human cells and organs in a type of 'incubator'. While I certainly respect this emerging field, it is just that -- emerging. As the opponent mentions, human cells can indeed be grown outside of a human. However, there has yet to be any complex organ replicated that accurately functions as it would in a person. If this were currently possible, there would no longer be a transplant list and people would be living much longer, as they could simply have their defunct organs replaced with grown ones. It's important that this debate is taking place and concern the status quo, the way things currently are. It's quite possible that sometime down the line animals will not be necessary for testing purposes, however this is not the case now. It is additionally possible that, in the future, we develop a way to remove a fetus from the womb at any stage, allowing for continued healthy growth of the child. But since this hasn't happened yet, the debate around abortion rage on, just as this one does and should. Lastly, it's important to note that drugs are systemic in nature. They affect all parts of the body, often in surprising ways. Animals like pigs and mice have these complete systems and we find that drugs often behave the same way in them as they do us. What's more important, perhaps, is that bad drugs are immediately evident if the animals develop adverse effects. Even if we could grow human organs, fully functioning and all, this would still not be enough to test drugs effectively. A full human analogue of organs would be necessary. But at that point, you've created a new human being -- which comes with a host of issues on its own. Animal Organ Use in HumansI will cede this point to the opponent. He made a solid point about bioengineered animals being able to be useful without necessitating their death, in this scenarioI will split the hunting/population control argument into two parts, for clarity, as well as briefly join the hunting and economic argument, as my opponent's way of dealing with the two is identical. Hunting/Economic GoodThe opponent has attempted to circumvent the heart of my argument by using a semantic argument. A quick search on the definition of 'resource' [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] yields a wealth of definitions. Note "a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life". This is really the basic concept of what a resource is. There can be no doubt that humans value pleasure as a resource -- as a large amount of human decisions take this directly into account. We eat food we prefer for pleasure, we buy houses we like for pleasure, we spend our leisure time on pleasurable activities. There can be no doubt that pleasure enhances the quality of human life, and in fact may be a key part of what humans consider to my life quality. Given this, it is clear my argument still stands. When the animal is not endangered and when the pleasure a human gets from killing it outweighs all of the benefits humanity gets from it being alive, the killing is completely justified. This argument also applies to the economy. It is clear that economic good directly increases the quality of human life, meaning it should be treated as a resource as well. While this broader definition of 'resource' may not be what my opponent originally foresaw, it is clearly a useful definition in the context of this debate and it demands to be considered. Population ControlI do have to agree with my opponent on part of this argument -- nature does often remain in balance when humans do not interfere with it. However, it is a fact of life that humans must inherently interact with nature -- as they are part of it. Even in a world where humans did not kill animals, we would still displace them, transport them from place to place and use them in other ways beneficial to us. It is these uses that create situations where population control is necessary. For instance, it is quite common for the actions of a human to introduce a predator into an ecosystem where it previously did not exist. Often, the animals there have not developed ways of dealing with this predator and it can wreak havoc on the system. Sometimes, hunting in the name of population control is the only way to deal with the problem. In fact, if the goal is to protect animal life, it is often in our best interest to hunt the predator. To picture this, imagine a world exactly like today's, except there are no prisons and no way to incarcerate people. It would be necessary to kill many criminals, as their continued existence threatens more than one life. Similarly, population control is good for the animal kingdom as it helps restore the balance of nature that humans cannot help but upset. Opponent's Additional ThoughtsMy opponent seems to believe that there are superior ways of solving problems that we currently solve by killing animals. Additionally he believes that close interactions with animals have resulted in many deadly diseases. Regarding his first thought, I have shown this is untrue. I have shown it is in some cases superior for the human race to utilize animals and in other cases superior for both the human and animals races to utilize animals. While future technology may change this, in the status quo animal-based options continue to be superior in many fields. As for his second thought, the rationale is just plain wrong. Regardless of whether we kill animals, we still interact closely with them. The avian flu would not have been avoided had we simply stopped killing chickens. The swine flu would not have been avoided by no longer killing pigs. And in the time when bubonic plague was a threat, it was the cities and regions who attempted to destroy the rat population and infected humans that had the fewest casualties. In that case, killing the animals actually resulted in an increase of two valuable resources -- health and safety. ConclusionsMy opponent made some fantastic points and even convinced me of one of his arguments. However, the rest I have shown to be inadequate. I look forward to my opponent's response! Thanks for reading!