Animal testing should be banned!

Well, there isn't much to say at this point as my opponent has pretty much admitted to plagiarism and appears to think that it is benign. That unfortunately isn't true."Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it."First, it's fascinating that you've admitted to plagiarism, which to me is the equivalent of a full forfeit.Second, this is not the case. You can use some of the arguments in a piece, but literally copying and pasting somone else's work and passing it off as your own work is not permitted, neither here or in academia. I can tell you, as a published academic, that I would get into big trouble if I ever attempted to do that. Third, you haven't proven anything. And, because you bear the burden of proof, you need to prove your case.Fourth, you can call me Mr. Keynes, if you'd prefer."By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food." His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about.This doesn't prove anything. First you haven't cited the story nor used it as evidence -- please don't copy and paste it. So, at this point, you're only argument is "Trsut me, I'm right." Second you're making an assertion that animal testing is cruel without proving it. Third you haven't connected cruelty to a ban. The resolution does not pertain as to whether animal testing is cruel in its current form, but whether it should be flat-out banned. If, for instance, animal testing were modified so that it weren't cruel, and therefore there wasn't a need to ban it -- as your only contention thus far is that animal testing is cruel -- the resolution would fall.Fourth in claiming that "Kyle knows his destiny" you pronounce that the mouse is conscious and aware. You've done somhting similar by saying that "He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." These are extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence do you have of either of these claims? How can you prove either of them? "Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?"My opponent is quite right that dogs are used for testing in the United States. As I said, she does not conntect this to the resolution. Her argument is essentaily this:P1: If (x) is cruel, it should be banned. P2: (x) is cruel.C: X should be banned. If this were the case, we have to ask ourselves how we define "cruel." Not only is the phrase subjective, but then we have to consider how far we would like to go in our endeavor to eliminate cruelty. Do we ban all forms of animal slaughter? Do we agree with PETA that we animals shouldn't even be kept as pets? If that were the case, wouldn't animals be subjected to even worse fates in the wild? The point is, my opponent cannot take a hypocritical stance that some forms of cruelty are fine, but others are not. At the same time, she cannot ignore that fact that, if animal testing were to be reformed to eliminate cruelty, the resolution falls, anyway. At this point, even though I do not bear the burden of proof, I will offer my own contentions.Contention 1: Animal Testing is Necessary Truth be told, there simply isn't any alternative to animal testing, and we would be foregoing critical scientific research. For instance, all veterninary research requires animal testing, every medical breakthrough over the past 10 years has utilized it, every Nobel Prize Winner in medicine or physiology from as early as 1901 utilized it in their work, and several surgical techniques (e.g., hip replacement and heart transplants), seveal medicines (e.g., several antibiotics and pain killers), and several anasthetics all relied on animal testing -- as did medical techniquies such as MRI's. Simply put, there is no way to substitute non-animal testing completely for animal testing. We would be sacrificng major medical breakthroughs and put human lives at risk.[1. http://tinyurl.com...] Contention 2: My Opponent's Case is DeceptiveMy opponent cites dogs in her example. However, in the U.K., dogs, cats, and primates only account for 0.2 percent of the animals used in research (1). There may be ways, as I said earlier, to reform testing, but using the example of a dog is highly deceptive and Pro is leaving out crucial context. At the same time, the U.K. has strict regulations on the type of testing that can be carried out. For instance, animal testing may only be used in cases where non-animal testing cannot be substituted. Ethics committees constinually review practices to ensure that the benefits of the testing outweigh the costs, the costs being the suffering to the animals. Contention 3: Trade-Off Between Human Suffering and Animal SufferingAs I have pointed out, in many cases animal testing is non-substitutable. It has been crucial in developing crucial medicines and breakthroughs that we use today. So, if you intended to stop the suffering of animals by banning animal testing, you would significantly increase the suffering of human beings who are suffering and dying with otherwise preventable diseases. Surely my adversary would not support that. Contention 4: Philosophical CaseThere is in fact a philosophical case against animal testing. Rene Descartes, for instance, did not consider animals to be conscious, minded creatures, but essentially machines who operated solely with respect to causal laws, noted in the fact that they coudn't display adaptibility as it pertained to language and behavior. Peter Carruthers takes a simialr position. He argues that consciousness necessitates higher-order thinking. For this reason, not all human behavior is conscious. Because animals cannot exhibit higher-order thinking, an argument for consciousness is essentially null and void.[2. http://tinyurl.com...]