Testing on Animals

Rebuttal 1I am by no means asserting that all animal testing is moral and just. If you take a look at Round 1, I stated that I will be arguing the position that animal testing is "acceptable in most cases. " I understand that by posting these YouTube videos you have a degree of passion about this topic, and that is fine. However, you must understand that you are using the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy, and it is near impossible to argue logic against emotion (however, since we are arguing on a Debate site, I believe most, if not all of the debaters, will not take emotion into consideration when voting). Google Images is unreliable. Not only are most images on the Internet touched up and edited in some way,[1] but this search is inherently biased. The term "animal testing" is often used in a negative way. [2] Typing in a negatively-connoted term such as animal testing and finding images of animals locked in cages about to get brutally tortured is just as surprising as typing in the word "death" and getting images of the Grim Reaper. [3] Just by using the term "animal testing" your search is automatically viewed from a negative perspective. As for the New York Times site, you said the last quote is the most important. It says, "over time, the use of animals for testing could be greatly reduced and possibly eliminated. " The use of the word 'could' in this sentence is very important. In this context, the word 'could' means "expressing possibility. "[4] This article is only expressing possibility of reducing animal testing in the future, which is completely just. I am not arguing that animal testing is a good way, only that it is the best way. If a new process of medical experimentation is created, animal testing would be an archaic method of experimentation; however, for now, it is the only way of testing. As for peta. org, this source is automatically biased, however, you do not state any specific claim from this site that I can rebut. Rebuttal 2Does it have to be between human and animal? Yes, in this argument, it does, actually. Because medications that are given to the public must first be tested on animals so medical companies are aware of the problems in the medicine. If they are not, this may result in serious injury to a patient taking the medicine or even death. Some of the greatest medical advances of the last few centuries can be attributed to the testing of medicine on animals before being released to the public. [2]My opponent states that "there are other ways to test medication," yet she has not given any examples. She has agreed that the "dead corpse" was extreme and almost "sarcastic" so this option is recognized as invalid by both sides. The only way of testing medication on a complex and conscious living being is a member of the animal kingdom; however, we must choose between humans and animals at this point. As we could both probably agree that we testing on humans is more immoral than testing on animals, we are left with one option: to test medication on animals. Here is my argument in the form of a syllogism:1. Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives2. Medication must be tested before release3. The only available test subjects are live animals4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals5. Medication must be tested on animalsMy opponent agrees that humans have rights. However, she assumes that we have other ways of testing medications (I assume this is what you mean by "we can save lives in different fashions"). This is incorrect. There is no way of knowing how a system as complex as a living being will react unless we test it. You may find some of my statements horrifying or immoral (i. e. "Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives") but you cannot deny that they are correct -- if you are a talented doctor and find a way around testing animals, so be it, but until then, this is the only option. Animal abuse is irrelevant. We are discussing animal testing; that is, the morality of the testing of medication on animals before its use in hospitals. The way scientists treat animals before or after medication is irrelevant, we are discussing the implications and necessity of animal testing. Sources1. Josephson, Sheree. Visualizing the Web: Evaluating Online Design from a Visual Communication Perspective. p. 54.2. Thomassen, Marte, et al. "Animal Testing in Medical Research. " goo. gl/MrmOn p. 4. 3. Google, Inc. "Google Images. " . http://goo.gl...4. Dictionary. com. "Could. " . http://goo.gl...5.