Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.

OK, before I start rebuttling Con's arguments I have to make something clear! :I knew it would happen!! Firstly, do you think I am so naive that I would not think that you would found the website? It's the number 1 result when you google "animal testing pros and cons"and "animal testing cons", the number 2 result when you google "animal testing pros", and the number 8 result when you google"animal testing advantages". It was almost impossible for someone to mke a good research without visiting this site! This is why I gave you the sources!.. Every copied sentence is attached with the link of the site where it was first published! Since, I give the links and admit that these sentences have not been created by me I have no reason to paraphraze them!Secondly, I don't understand why this was such a great deal for you that you could not rebuttle at least one of the arguments I posted. Here are some sites that mention the debate rules- nowhere says that participants must come up with their own arguments. http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw...http://www.entsoc.org...Do you know why? Because the main purpose of debating is to defend your side well in order to persuade the audience! "I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest."In the first place, it IS fair and honest! A debater's arguments should not be prepared based on his/her opponent's level of knowledge. It was not my indebtedness to make arguments easy enough for you but it was you who had to search and post sophisticated ones. Moreover, NO! we would not be left with a non-debte. Contrary, it woud be a very interesting debate! We would both have to rebuttle some sophisticted arguments instead of ordinary ones and it would be great! It would be one of those constructive debates that could help people define their position and gain some knowledge! "I am going to cut this round short as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. "Really? You had more arguments but you didn't post them because you waited for me to post my "genuine" arguments? And when did you expect to post them? In your round 3? Now, about the "genuine" arguments:A debater should collect as many arguments as he/she can in order to defend his/her side! It is impossible to base a whole debate on someone's arguments! Before starting a debate, we all do some research! There no one who uses only his/her own arguments. You cannot ask me not to search and collect arguments and evidence, so I suppose that you want me to paraphraze them. BUT:1) An argument is yours when you are the first to think about it or at least you have come up with it without having heard or read it somewhere.. You cannot claim that an argument is your just because you have paraphrazed it. So, almost all of us use arguments that someone else has though about. And that's what we have to do in order to form an opinion! You cannot define your position in a topic by taking into consideration only your genuine arguments. 2) Given that I have paraphrazed the whole text.. So what? Does anything change? The main idea would remain the same! The only difference would be that I would may have done some mistakes. There are things that only specialized people know and I would not be sure if the paraphrazed text would be correct. Sometimes, a word plays an important role in a text and it could also change the whole meaning. So, since I have given you the sources, why should I have to risk it? So, there was no reason for you to ignore the arguments, let alone to ask me to paraphraze them. If you want to rebuttle something, rebuttle these arguments! Unfortunately, I will not have the chance to rebuttle your rebuttles. And finally, NO! I have not voided my entire previous round by plagiarising. This is wrong! If you had spent a little time to read and compare the 2 texts, maybe you wouldn't have said that! I have done much research and work in order for my round to be completed. I've added and removed many things.. examples: what animal testing offersthe image (found it while checking out a source that the website used too.)"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine (source 6..Sorry, but I had not characters available)The quote at the endHousehold cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every yearand many more things have been added. Now let's start with the rebuttals:"However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! That we recognize animals' rights and we try to prevent them from suffering! Oh, yeah! I forgot..you have ignored my whole round 2 for some reason.. "Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?'I have to repeat things..Oh gosh! OK, let's get started:We don't grant ourselves at the expense of animals. We just use animals whenever we cannot do something else.. I'm sorry but the only way to save from the HIV and the cancer or save animals from certain diseases we HAVE to use a few animals. Thanks to animal research we are where we are now and a lot of other species have not been extinct. We cannot stop using animals unless we find an alternative way to test drugs. "An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture."I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. If animals were in our shoes, they would do the same. This is how nature works! I also mentioned that :"Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK"This shows that animals kill each other without being menaced. The fact that we're being menaced now proves that in order for some species to become powerful so that they will not be extinct, they have to harm some other species. I never said that we have to torture animals because we are more powerful, but when we're being menaced, we have to find a way to protect ourselves. Please note that we try to harm animals as little as possible despite the fact that we're in danger. " While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today"No, it is. I made a whole paragraph about why animals are necessary. Many diseases that menace our species today cannot be cured by using only alternative research methods. The tretments cannot be found so easilly. They need years of testing and examination. So, yeah, this argument is still appicable."Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?"Go to the last paragraph " But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:" There are a lot of things that humans cannot offer. "except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests"Really? And your well-being? I have proved that animal testing benefits both people and animals. Thanks to medical research many animals have not been extinct. We have a lot of laws to protect them. We try to avoid using animals. What else can we do? Unless we find an alternative method we HAVE to use animals. If you have sth better to propose, do it. We can not quit medical research as we have to find treatments quickly if we don't want to die. Now, about morality:As Con has based all of her arguments on morality, I guess that she is a conscious person who stresses the importance of taking moral values into consideration. To start with, I have to clarify that morality is subjective and every person has differerent moral values. So, you cannot ask me to demonstrate animal testing to be immoral as I can simply answer that "For, me it is moral as I think that we have to use our power against other species" for instance. NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Furthermore, we are not responsible only for our acts but also for our omissions. That means that we have to take into consideration the consequences of conducting animal testing and those of quiting animal testing. Which is more immoral? To use a few animals in order to find a way to face some viruses or to let many people and animals die which can lead to the extinction of many species while we can avoid it?