Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing

I would also like say that one or two sources will be accepted this round (since there are some things I cannot refute without a source). Before beginning, I would simply like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, not all animals are anesthetized [12]. Ct.1It appears my opponent has forgotten that animal testing simply delayed the vaccine to polio and at the same time killed several people. Therefore, his calculations are not reliable. Furthermore, I wanted to know if animal testing was making any progress or producing treatments for present time diseases. Apparently, this is not the case (as was shown in my third "contention"). Ct.2I was not comparing children to worms. I was not aware that worms were even used in animal testing. Moving on, this analogy is perfectly viable. This is because the same concept arises: in both situations, you are inflicting pain on those who are at your mercy. We do not experiment on humans without their consent, with several exceptions. Likewise, it is not right to test on animals against their will. My opponent will most likely refute this point by claiming, "Animals cannot give consent and do not have a voice of their own to tell us they do not want to be tested on; thus, it is okay for us to test on them. " If that is the case, then let us apply this to another situation. An old man is incapable of communicating with you (i. e. he cannot talk, write, read, do sign language, etc. ), and he has a mental illness, so he cannot understand what you say. However, he can understand very basic commands (similar to a dog). He always helps you around the house and is very nice and gentle. Does this make it okay to test on him like we would with an animal (or any people with mental disabilities)? Of course it does not. Thus, animal testing is also unacceptable. My opponent will then most likely say, "We don't know if animals don't want to be tested on. " However, animals can feel pain (both physical and emotional). They enjoy freedom and do not enjoy getting hurt (as is with most living organisms). We have even created pain anesthetics for animals, which shows they can feel physical pain. Animals can also feel fear (i. e. a dog putting its tail between its feet) and possibly even sadness (i. e. when a mother mourns for her lost cubs). Thus, since animals can feel pain, then they obviously do not want to feel it, which means they do not want to be subjected to testing. Therefore, animal testing is still not acceptable, because you are inflicting pain/suffering to those who are at your mercy (which are the animals tested on). Rebuilding-1. My opponent attempts to use technicalities in his favor, claiming that killing 100 million animals is not immoral because it does not involve humans. However, it does involve humans. Who do you think kills all these animals and subjects them to testing? The answer is humans, of course. Therefore, it is not right to kill so many animals. Then my opponent attempts to use more technicalities by saying that inflicting severe pain upon animals, by definition, is not the same as torturing. I am sorry, but this really makes no sense to me. You are still inflicting severe pain upon an innocent, living organism, regardless of your motives. Then you gave two examples about how we can "measure" torture. Well, animals can do that as well. After all, if you kick a dog in the leg it is going to yelp, is it not? The harder you kick it, the louder it yelps. Furthermore, you claim animals do not receive pain as we do. Then why do we do psychological tests on animals if they do not receive pain as we do? Does that not mean these tests are unreliable? Let us not forget that, regardless of how animals receive the pain, they can still feel it and do not enjoy it at all. Lastly, while the people who made the site are biased, I fail to see how the facts presented on the site are biased. 2. Animal testing is at fault, because it is not reliable enough for us to determine whether a drug is safe to use on humans. After all, it fails 92% of the time, does it not? It seems that there is no coincidence in these recurring failures. Are you implying that 92% of the time scientists did not record the results correctly, or that 92% of the time someone messed with the results? If that is the case, then I have to say that today's scientists are either not the sharpest tools in the shed or they are very untrustworthy. I think the more logical alternative to this is simply that animal testing is not reliable. To refute my statistics about the 92% (as we will now call it), you said that human clinical trials are harder than animal testing. I think you mean to say they are more reliable than animal testing, since the results animal testing produced were too harmful for humans. Again, this simply proves that animal testing is not reliable for humans. If they cannot pass human clinical trials, then that means they cannot be used in the public without harmful results. Animal Life vs. Human LifeI would like to point out that approximately 70,000 dogs are killed from animal testing every year in the U. S. alone [13]. Thus, it is likely that a plethora of animals (other than mice or rats) were killed simply so you can brush your teeth, despite the seemingly small percentages. You also say that you are all right with killing 200,000 animals so you can brush your teeth in safety. Following your logic, then it would be okay to kill 200,000 mentally disable people so you can brush your teeth in safety, since they (like the animals) cannot have a say in whether or not they want to be tested on. Whether or not I agree with animal testing outside of this debate is irrelevant. Even if my toothpaste was safety tested in animals, I still do not like it. If I live in a communist government, does that mean I support it? The answer is no. Likewise, if I use animal tested toothpaste, that does not necessarily mean I support animal testing (especially since I do not know if it has been animal tested on or not). Before I answer your question, I would like to point out that it is far from reality. We do not kill one lab rat, and then suddenly find a cure. We probably kill several hundred thousand-lab rats, and several thousand dogs, cats, monkeys, etc. in the process. Anyways, my answer to your question is yes. However, I only say this because it is my nature (and nearly every human's nature) to protect our own species. I would like to ask you a question, now. This time there will be no natural instinct to protect your own species. Would you kill a baby child to save a middle-aged adult? The baby represents an animal: both cannot say if they want to be killed or not. We only know that both can feel pain. The middle-aged adult represents the human: both have a say in what goes. Conclusion-I did not accept pros to animal testing because I only had about three characters left, so sorry about that. Here are both sides to animal testing thus far: Pros-• Has saved millions of humans in the past. • Has saved several million animals. Cons-• Produces faulty medicine, endangering human lives. • Kills approximately 100 million animals every year, making it immoral. • Inflicts severe suffering to those who are at our mercy. I thank my opponent for the last time in this debate, and hope he enjoyed it as much as I did. [12] . http://www.dosomething.org... [13] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...