Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing

Because this is a summary round I intend to bring quotes from earlier rounds. Ct.1 Summary I would like to label my opponents beginning argument as a non sequiter. The vaccine technically wasn't delayed, that incident only delayed some testers. Where in the source does it say it affected Jonas Salk(The creator of the polio vaccine) The con also did not refute the affecting point. If it has saved lives in the past then technically it is still saving lives Example Grandma was saved for polio She then has ten children(Baby Boomer) Those ten children have 2 children, apiece. And so on, and so on. Imagine if grandma did not recieve the vaccine. That's twenty current lives, already! So, thus it is still saving lives, based on the effect of the cure. Also in RD1 I posted a list of present conditions/diseases that don't currently have a vaccine. The treatment for these diseases and all of our understanding for these diseases came from animal testing. Diphtheria(Only has treatment) Diphtheria(Only has treatment) Measles(No treatment, currently working on it) Diabetes(Only has treatments) Asthma(Only has managements) Look at any medicine that is used today that started from animal testing. And also consider that the current vaccines that were produced by animal testing are STILL being used. Peoples lives are STILL being saved Ct.2 With my opponent beginning analogy he is making a flawed analogy that runs like this RD3(The con's words) "It would be similar to saying that it is acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit the rich ones" ". .Scientists are still doing the same thing: they are inflicting suffering to those who are at there mercy(the animals). " RD4(The con's words) ". .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" Do you know what an animals will is? Can you read animal minds? And when most of these animals were born specially for the purpose of being experimented on, how do the know what freedom is? Also with your next example, you are still comparing humans to animals(Elderly to a dog) Animal Testing exist solely to help humans and help humans help animals(I will later show how my opponent agrees to this statement) And again this debate is not about whether animal testing is acceptable, It's about the pros and con's of animal testing. The con case 1. First of all about the morality rebuttal, I actually said humans are in the discussion whenever someone talks about morality. Here is the exact words throughout the debate "First of all the con gives his moral argument based off of what he himself believes, He never actually gives a poll or any feedback from the countless people animal testing has saved. "Pro Round 1 "In addition, I did not give a poll or statistic for the people animal testing has saved because this argument has to do with animals, not humans. "Con R2 "When anyone calls something moral or immoral, it brings in humans Because humans are the only ones that can compare morality and discuss it"Pro R2 "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. "Con R3 Up to the last round the con and I were following each other correctly, but the con decided to completely flip what I was saying, about anything morality based involving humans. He actually takes my argument point from R2. And with the definition of torture, I was saying that by definition it can only happen to humans. Example Frog Jumping Contest[1] Definition-Frog jumping is a competitive pastime in which frogs compete to jump certain distances So by definition a turtle cannot participate in a frog jumping contest, only frogs. To answer the con on the subject of psychological tests, we do those to determine how the receive pain, not if the receive it like us. No it does not make the test unreliable, but I fail to see point in this argument. I will discuss sources in the summary 2. First of, the con completely threw out all of my arguments about his three main drug points about animal testing being unreliable, So in-order to try and make up for not refuting his main points, he decided to expand his 92 percent minor point. Both of these testing methods are actually reliable by my opponents standards Because both testing methods are getting the results (Animal Testing with the majority of drugs pass, And Human testing with the majority failing) Both of these tests get near the same results multiple amounts of time. Now a test would be un-reliable if it got multiple results each time Example Testing method 1 Test 1-Pass Test 2-Fail Test 3-Pass Test 4-Fail Test 5-Pass Test 6-Fail Testing method 2 Test 1-Pass Test 2-Pass Test 3-Pass Test 4-Pass Test 5-Pass Test 6-Pass Now, we know which testing method is actually more reliable. Testing method 2 had the most consistent results. That doesn't mean that they might have been the results that would have benefit the drug or been valid. So both of these testing methods are actually reliable, since they don't jump around with the results and stay consistent. Animal Life vs Human Life In your source it says "Every year, about 70,000 dogs are tested on in labs in the United States," NOT killed As with the teeth brushing my opponent was merely repeating what I said. And with my logic and the humans standpoint(Which I will explain later) it's only alright to test on animals to save humans. Anthropocentrism point Definition of Anthropocentrism-Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe[2] This is the center point in today's debate, and the true reason why we animal test. We are the most important beings in the universe. Thus we try to save ourselves any way we can. Animal testing is justified, simply if it saves only one person. That's a human being one of the "most significant entities in the universe" BUT, it's not only human that have this view point, animals have it to. When a shark eats a fish to feed itself, then the shark just practiced sharkpocentrism When a lion kills a zebra to feed it's family, then the lion just practiced lionpocentrism. When a human kills a multitude of rats, then the human just practice anthropocentrism. It's not bad to try and save your own species, and that's what animal testing is doing. Other species do it all the time, so why can't we. The con is even for the protection of human being. "Anyways, my answer to your question is yes. However, I only say this because it is my nature (and nearly every humans nature) to protect our own species. " He says it himself. It is in our nature to protect humanity no matter how high the cost. My opponent is justifying the human race using any means to save themselves(Aka animal testing) Summary Today's summary will sum up the main points you should be voting on. Arguments Has saved millions of humans in the past(Thus saving more now using the affecting point and the fact that most animal tested vaccines are still used to this date, also con agree to this) Is saving million(Already explained, con inherently agreed to this) Has saved and is saving animal lives(Can insert the affecting points and the vaccine points) Sources If you just look at the NAMES of my opponent's sources then you can notice most of them are actually biased or getting information from a biased source(In [13] even though the name looks great, it frequently references PETA, a common anti-animal testing group) I used sites that do not have any specific agenda Thank you