Purchasing vaccines endorses animal cruelty

I'll jump in, following his arguments mostly in order. I'll label as I go. .03% of Chickens ArgumentThe point of this argument was not to claim that 2.5 million was irrelevant compared to 9 billion, but rather vaccine development has virtually no impact on the chicken farming industry. Vaccine developent does not 'endorse, approve, or sustain' the chicken industry, since it is such a truly miniscule part of it. My opponent is attempting to insinuate that the killings in this industry are due to, in any relevant part, vaccine testing. I have shown this isn't true. Therefore, we should not consider this argument in the way he framed it. The use of chickens in vaccine testing does not endore the chicken farming industry. Cruelty -- Intent or Not? My opponent claims that because the majority of definitions provided do not mention the word intent that we should assume intent is not involved. As I said in my definitional analysis, it's necessary to pick a definition that best suits the situation. There are so many examples of animals being hurt by humans in the world, but vaccination testing death isn't one often thought of. It's one of those odd cases that we need to be extra careful with our definitions. My opponent now attempts to take my two given examples as to why we need to be careful about definitions and show they aren't valid. I'll briefly hit each. First, the hunting scenario. He first agrees that kiling is part of the hunting scenario, which is completely true. He next brings up several examples including "cock fighting, dog fighting, and pigeon shootings" to show why my logic is bankrupt. However, he forgets the most important qualification I introduced, key to my entire argument. I stated that the killing of the animal in the hunting scenario was justified because it was the most reasonable way to accomplish the main goal. Again, the goal was to survive. Eating is necessary for survival and, on this island, the source of food was the animal. Killing the animal was justified to meet the goal because it was the most reasonable way to do so. In my opponent's counter-examples, he says that my logic justifies the killing of animals for fun and generating money. However, this simply isn't true by my logic because killing animals isn't the most reasonable way to have fun, just as killing animals (in many cases) is not the most reasonable way to gain wealth. Regarding my second example, about the sick pet, my opponent's argument isn't very solid. He essentially says that you should put down a pet with cancer because 'cancer sometimes goes into remission'. This is true. Sometimes it does. Usually it does not. If the main goal is to prevent your pet from suffering, the most reasonable way to do this is to put it down. It is not reasonable to leave it alive in the slim hope that its cancer goes into spontaneous remission. Do the Ends Justify the Means? Yes. As I have shown, killing an animal is not cruelty when it is the only reasonable means of achieving a goal that is of great societal good. Again, my opponent brings up fun and money, without realizing that wealth and fun are not nearly a significant good as is health and life. New Approaches to Vaccine ProductionMy opponent claims that 'some within the scientific community say that animal testing is obselete and inefficient'. If one looks at the article, he will see that the article refers to toxicology in human cells, not disease. It is well understood that some animals have similar responses to vaccines as humans do. One cannot grow human cells in a petri dish, introduce the vaccine, then expect it to react in the same way it would when introduced to an actual human being. Drugs work on a systemic level, so it is necessary to have an entire living system in which to test the drug. The First AmendmentI'm not sure that my opponent has a point here. He states that some people have religious objections (to animal testing, I suppose), but then says that the goverment can't make a law respecting the establishment of religion. If someone has a religious objection to animal testing, that doesn't take away from my previous arguments that animal testing is both justified and leads to a considerable and significant human good. Are Vaccines Really Necessary? The opponent then states that vaccines haven't been around that long and that there are other ways of boosting the immune system. First, it's true that vaccines haven't been around that long. Neither has NyQuil. But the fact that it's a new technology doesn't take away from the evidence I provided that it saves lives, prevents illness, and reduces economic losses related to health care. Next, my opponent seems to imply that there are other ways of boosting the immune system that can supplant vaccinations. This shows a lack of knowledge about how vaccines work. Humans are not so evolved that we can suddenly develop immunity to diseases we haven't been infected with the in the past. Vaccines directly allow us to gain the immunity to these diseases. Additionally, babies are the ones who most need vaccines (and my evidence actually applies specifically to infants and the young). There isn't much you can do to strengthen a baby's immune response to such a degree that it can fight off the measles and it isn't as if babies smoke (another point my opponent brought up, though I'm not sure why. )ConclusionI have provided evidence saying that vaccines are a significant societal good. I have demonstrated that hurting animals if justified if that is the most reasonable way to achieve a societal good. I have counterred my opponents arguments. Hopefully the reader can now see that vaccines do not endorse animal cruely, but instead contribute to the health and life of humanity as a whole.