Animal Testing

Animal Testing: The use of non-human animals in experiments. Experiment: a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something. [1] Rebuttal: "By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely." - I'm sure they aren't treated "humanely", as they are not human. - However there are many cases of animal testing also do not harm the animal and in fact benefits the animal. - For example, currently the WWF organization are working hard to preserve Pandas, which are an endangered species. [2] To preserve the Pandas, they must learn more about Pandas. To do this, they must experiment on them. These experiments are generally harmless. For example, a scientist may measure and weigh several Pandas to determine which size and weight is healthy, so that they can spot out Pandas that are not healthy easier. Also, if a Panda is sick, veterinarians must experiment on the Panda to determine what is wrong with it and how to cure it, much like how a doctor would perform an x-ray scan on a broken bone to determine where the fracture is so he can accurately provide a diagnosis. "According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures," - That is unfortunate, but why should we humans care about the pains felt by animals? We already butcher and slaughter them for food. They already suffer whether or not we test them. And we do this because food benefits us, just like animal testing may benefit us. - Furthermore as I have shown, not all cases of animal testing result in the suffer of animals. Con's resolution is basically: "Animal testing is terrible and should be banned." My burden of proof is simply to show cases in which animal testing is not terrible and is actually necessary. I've met this burden by explaining how animal testing is necessary for the preservation of animals, which may also preserve the environment. "Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it." - Con has committed the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as the bandwagon fallacy. [3] Using an appeal to the masses does not validly support one's argument. "Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal." - It doesn't matter how much we or animals are worth. If those people truly feel like this, they would all be vegans/vegetarians, which I'm sure is unlikely. We eat because we benefit from it, not because we devalue animals. The same goes for animal testing. - Animal testing has made huge medical breakthroughs in fighting breast cancer, Leukemia, HIV/AIDS, lung cancer, birth defects, diabetes, and the list goes on. [4] Those are the benefits we got from animal testing. Therefore, we don't do it because we devalue animals, but because it benefits us. "Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable." - It is important for judges to note that this entire sentence was plagiarized word for word from this website: http://www.ehow.com... *In fact, the rest of Con's argument on "Expense" and "Necessity" has also been plagiarized from the same website. Because they are not Con's arguments, I refuse to address them. This is a clear conduct violation. "There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical studentsI have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong" - Con did not provide a clear definition for animal testing in both round 1 and round 2. Therefore, I was allowed to provide a definition that Con must abide by. My definition of "Animal Testing" was: "The use of non-human animals in experiments." - My examples of preserving animals and the environment require non-human animals to be used in experiments. Therefore, it is still valid in the boundaries of this debate and considered animal testing. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://wwf.panda.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.amprogress.org...