March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

Thanks, Pro!Conduct I agree with Pro’s example, however in this debate the topic is “animal rights”, and he has eliminated (by his qualification of vertebrates) 90% of all animals. Again, if we are to going to label discrimination, then I am allowed to defend myself. I have encouraged the readers to consider the degree to which Pro is discriminating arbitrarily compared to the degree by which I am discriminating with a reasoned approach. Pro may not be discriminatory to all animals, but within the scope of this debate his position is discriminatory. I have no conduct violation in this matter. Tejretic’s conduct violation was covered in round three, and instead rehashing it, I will leave that for the voters to determine. Ethics and Reason Technically, Pro is arguing that is acceptable for animals to exploit humans, and acceptable for humans to exploit animals. He simply demands a higher standard from humans. I have no problem with this, but for Pro this is problematic. According to his definitions, exploitation of animals by humans is completely disallowed. Any instance in which Pro admits it is reasonable for animals to be exploited is a point for me and the position I have been advocating for this debate. Hunting Hunting has many benefits for humans, but the Kalahari bushmen example illustrates a primal need and benefit from killing animals: food for the purpose of survival. Killing a single animal for the purposes of population control is unfair from that animal’s point of view, and humans benefit from having less prey species wandering into human areas of habitation and thus less predator species (following prey) in close proximity to humans. Overall, humans must treat some animal ‘unfairly’ by killing it, so that we can benefit from its death by consumption or increased safety from predators where we live. It is exploitation, and if it were not done humans would die for the sake of animals. Suggesting that these things should not be done insinuates that animal lives are more important than human lives. I cannot agree with Pro here. Vegetarianism A single Kalahari bushman killing a single animal for food is definitely unfair from the animal’s point of view. The hunter gets the benefit of survival at the expense of the animal. By definition, this is exploitation, and Pro has acknowledged this circumstance is acceptable (although he does not consider it to be unfair). Secondly Pro asserts “an average vegetarian-from-birth's meal is cheaper than a meat-eater's meal”, but he provides no support for this statement. I have shown how the grocery bill for vegan diet is significantly more expensive than organic diet including meat, and I have shown meat replacements are more expensive than meat. Pre-clinical trials Pro questions how micro-dosing requires additional animals testing. In round three I demonstrated microdosing requires animal testing to determine what a ‘microdose’ is. Without Preclinical trials, we would be guessing at the dosage, and this would be dangerous to humans. Below are my words on this subject from round three. I am more than willing to accommodate Pro in this manner: Interestingly, Pro mentions Micro-dosing, which utilizes very small doses to see how they move around the human body. Micro dosing is considered a “phase 0” study. This is interesting because a phase 0 study requires pre-clinical trials (animal testing) to determine what the floor safety is, or in other words, to determine what is a micro dose. Phase 0 (micro-dosing) is at most supplemental, and cannot be considered an alternative to preclinical trials. Conclusion I have established many ways in which it is acceptable and necessary for humans to exploit animals in order for us to alleviate suffering and prevent death. Just because our benefit is survival does not change that there is a benefit and that we are exploiting animals. In round 1, Pro set out to show animals should be free of human exploitation, but has allowed for instances of hunting, and population control, and even suggested sacrificing a few animal lives for the survival of many human lives is acceptable. Of course, the last example is a direct analogy for Pre-clinical trials. Pro has not reached his goal. Exploitation of animals can be morally right, and Pro has agreed with many of my examples either directly or indirectly. That being said, it has been an interesting debate, Tejretics. I have enjoyed it, and have learned much. I hope you have done the same.