Animal Testing

"believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species:" "Many have died FROM animal testing." I understand your argument. You are essentially saying "Animal testing goes wrong. Sometimes, we think it works in animals, but then we accidentally kill people". The problem is, this does not show that we should ban animal testing. Banning animal testing would result in MORE human deaths because then we won't have ANY way of testing a medication or procedure. So your argument is void. "Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion." Scientific evidence. Rabbits do not have the mental capacity to develop the concepts we know as freedom and pain. They just experience pain. And in this sense, torture would mean both a physical and mental anguish. If your definition of torture is just slight physical pain, it would be wrong to disinfect surfaces, take antibiotics, eat any sort of meat, etc. Thus, there must be more than the physical component to accurately define torture. "Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped?" Begging the question fallacy. This debate is about whether or not we should stop the deaths in the labs. Thus, it is not a valid point. "Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain?" As I have said before, the benefits we as a species get from animal testing far outweighs the harm we do to the animals we test on. You have no responded to my point about every medication on the market being the result of successful animal testing. "When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce." Your understanding is off. You mean to say that bacteria don't have brains. The nucleus of a single celled organism does not act as neural processing. However, this point is void. Bacteria respond to negative stimulus the same way we respond to pain. When we touch a hot stove, there are chemical signals telling us "this is bad, pull away". When bacteria encounter a destructive chemical, chemical transmitters and ion gates make it stop moving in that direction and turn around. "Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings?" Perhaps, but this really isn't helping your argument. You cannot show that animals feel the same way humans do, so why should we give up animal testing and the lives of so many other humans just because we feel we have an ethical duty towards animals who don't even know what ethics or morals are? "As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent." No tangent here. Plants and animals similarly respond to negative stimuli. Roots grow away from toxic substances, therefore, if we accept your definition, using weed killer is "torture" and should be stopped. My point is, "torture" must have both a physical and psychological component. Yes, animals may have feelings, but they don't understand the concept of torture. If a human is being tortured, half the pain comes from knowing that they can't escape the pain. Most lab animals simply keep trying to escape the pain. "As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab." Again, you have completely missed my point. You started talking about people trying to manufacture poisons and you have proven me correct. I made the hypothesis that you were skimming through my point about medications, saw the word "poison" and began to rant on something incoherently. I was right. You still don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to prove your point that the process of developing MEDICINE will eventually poison more and more animals. You have not done that. I was not talking about people who want to create poisons. I was talking about people who wanted to create working MEDICATIONS. Scientists developing a certain drug will test it on an animal. If it fails, they fix it, and test it on animals until they live. Hence, more testing leads to LESS overall deaths of lab animals, because the medication will have less and less side effects and a lower fatality rate. This completely disproves your point. "Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns?" This argument is completely irrelevant, a non sequitor. The fact that an animal displays emotions has nothing to do with whether or not is has human rights. You have failed to prove your point and thus, my argument still stands. "Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons." That's the only reason I need. Animal testing is going on and removing it would do a great deal of harm to our species. You are the one proposing the change, you think we should ban it. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you to develop an argument as to why we should ban animal testing DESPITE the terrible setback it would cause for our race. "I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough?" Non sequitor. This statement may bode well if you were a politician campaigning for the presidency, because it has a nice ring to it. But in debate, this makes absolutely no sense. "Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?" You have analyzed my argument poorly and have not made a single coherent point. --------- First and foremost, my point that animal testing is extremely beneficial to mankind has not been rebutted. Thus, we must take this as truth. Second, my opponent FAILED to show that animals deserve human rights. She only showed that animals have emotions. Third, my opponent is arguing that we should take measures to BAN animal testing. Thus, the burden of proof was on her to give an argument as to why we should sacrifice members of the human species for the sake of other animals. She has failed to do so. While it is regretful that animals die in the labs to produce our medications, the fact remains that animal testing is a necessity for our survival. There is no sufficient reason why we should sacrifice our survival for another animal's since non-human animals do not have and do not deserve human rights.