Ban vaccines

"The elephant brain has also been shown to possess an abundance of the specialized neurons known as spindle cells, which are thought to be associated with self-awareness, empathy, and social awareness in humans. Elephants have even passed the mirror test of self-recognition, something only humans, and some great apes and dolphins, had been known to do."[23]"watching Kakama pick up a log and carry it with him for hours. At one point, Kakama made a nest and placed the log in it, as if it were a small chimpanzee. "[24]"Kanzi, the famous bonobo, liked to pretend as well. Primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh described watching Kanzi hide invisible objects under blankets or leaves, later removing them from their hiding spots, and pretending to eat them." [24]In my opponents argument, he argues that animals have imagination however I will argue that these a targeted towards certain animals. Kanzi the Bonobo had some potential with imagination, but a majority of primates really do not have imagination. In fact, stated by Marion W. Copeland, the whole presumption that apes have imagination came from us humans. We developed the term "imagination", and we make the presumption that any living thing has imagination, when in reality we train them to have imagination (1 & 2). This theory can also be applied to from sociologist's Cooley's "Looking Glass Theory". The theory is: "Cooley´s concept of the looking glass self, states that a person’s self grows out of a person´s social interactions with others. The view of ourselves comes from the contemplation of personal qualities and impressions of how others perceive us. Actually, how we see ourselves does not come from who we really are, but rather from how we believe others see us" (3).The thing is, we are the lore of developing these animals imagination by putting our presumptions that animals do have imagination. If we didn't, animals would just be animals, but we put our own presumptions. So in reality, they are just animals and nothing more. Also, a major difference between humans imagination and an animals is: "As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species—at least by our own definition of intelligence". As it is seen, humans have more intelligence as well as more imagination technically.So basically your saying its okay to kill stupid sentient beings? Then, what makes it okay to kill chickens and not the mentally handicapped? How about autistic children? Should they be tested on because of their lack of intelligence? Also, there is a huge amount of chickens eaten, yet how is this relevant? We shouldn't be eating nor testing on chickens. They feel pain and have empathy.However, here is the difference between a disabled human and chicken. A human can show love and compassion no matter their condition, a chicken on the other hand cannot. A chicken does not show this, and is one of the few animals that just does not care about other humans feelings. If they don't care, why shouldn't they be tested on? Also, they are considered to be one of the animals with the most chance for disease (5). Because of their chance for disease, vaccinating them will hopefully prevent that disease, and because of this is much better. Then my opponent states why eating hickens is relevant. This is relevant because of proving how many do not care about chickens, and is the best test subject for these "dangerous" vaccinations. Even though proven in the second round, there is truly no harm to animals with vaccinations.Mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs, and primates are used.Yes I will agree that these animals were used for vaccinations, however they are not used as commonly as my opponent makes. What have we achieved with vaccinating tests? "Today there are far fewer visible reminders of the suffering, injuries, and premature deaths caused by diseases that can now be prevented with vaccines. For most of the vaccine-preventable diseases, there has been a 95 percent or more reduction in incidence" (6). That is a pretty high precentage, plus also vaccinations have resolved the biggest issues like polio and even diseases that common animals had.According to facts about animal research, with animal testing on vaccinations there have been many resolutions to diseases that animals had and could kill them. In fact, it was better they were tested than not having an animal at all or for the animal to suffer with that disease. For the animals being tested, "The MRC states that approximately 30% of their research uses animals and the remainder of studies conducted are in other models, like those listed above". 30%, that is lower than what my opponent presumes, the animal most used are mice (7). Mice are used commonly because of their life span (Beig 2-3 years), high reproduction rate, and easiest to see different changes (8). It is clear they are the best test subject because of them being so common, there is truly no loss.Because people with lots of money are so kind and compassionate. Just because we desire something, doesn't mean it is good for us. Crack addicts desire crack, yet its common knowledge that crack is detrimental to human health.Money is used for programs in society, making businesses, and standing up for animal rights. They give us the resources to operate within society, or to even interact with others in an exchangement agreement.My opponent doesn't counter the love of money 1 Timothy 6:10 quote. Instead deflecting with this quote.Actually I did. I was referring to how humans are far superior to animals, and how doing this benefits our economy.On the contrary, if I see the love of money as the root of all kinds of evil, I do not see that vaccines making more money is a Con argument. In fact, I see it as a Pro argument.That is an opinionated response, and is not really supported by any facts. Greed can be evil I agree, but just because you see it not helping the economy doesn't make it a fact. The fact is, in my previous argument, I brought a chart proving on how it is worth more than smoking or tobacco. That is a fact, not an opinion.An idiotic animal Con, an not aYeah I forgot an "N", not the end of the world. Also if this was an isult, or agressive attack, this deserves loss of conduct points because of "attacking" your opponent.When God gave humanity dominion over the animals, it was in order to care for, tend to, and use those animals to their fullest potential in a just manner.Definition of "Dominion": "the power or right of governing and controlling" (9). We have control over the animals, and we have the right to do with them any way we want. And we are technically using them to their fullest potential, to see if vaccinations are safe for humans. Are you so sure we should be injecting ourselves with a vaccine needle with toxins? Doesn't a needle resemble a serpent's tooth?That quote is more referring ot not getting tattoos on the body, or drinking like an alcoholic. Putting stuff that heals you is good because its not permanately damaging the body. It is healing it, which is what both God and Jesus wants for us; to be resolved of pain and be healthy.Sources will be in the comment section!