Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

"It is my position in this debate that atheists believe that something came from nothing. 1. There is a sequence of events. 2. Somewhere, the sequence of events must stop. From 1 and 2, we can clearly see that there is a 'first cause', as many call it. This first cause existed, yet did not come from anything. There was no thing it came from, it simply existed/happened." I will not argue the causal god side of this debate as that is unnecessary. "no thing" and "nothing" are separable outside of semantics and it was a clever ploy, but one I challenge. "no thing" is a causal statement; "nothing" is a form of negative existence. I clearly stated "nothing". Your syllogism is flawed by the way. No premise states anything about "cause". Big Bang theory uses Einstein's general theory of relativity to draw the history of the universe back to a moment in time when the entire universe was concentrated in a point of infinite density, called a singularity. This account however ignores quantum mechanics: at a point in time called the Planck time, the universe was small enough to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. To know accurately what impact these effects would have had on the universe before Planck-time requires a theory of quantum gravity, which combines general relativity with quantum mechanics (so we have at least 2 possibilities). General relativity: One outcome of relativistic physics is that space and time (spacetime) are themselves inseparable aspects of the universe. Consequently, by general relativity alone, the origin of the universe was the origin of space and time. There cannot have been time prior to (or space outside of) the initial singularity; "prior to" (or "outside of") the singularity makes no sense. In turn, this shows that the vision of the universe somehow "arriving from" an elemental nothingness, far from being a proviso of Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it. For the universe to have "come from" nothing there would have to be a point when, there was nothing, and then, at some later point in time, the universe suddenly existed. One cannot argue that the universe existed at the first moment of time, and then, in the next breath, imply that there was a time before this first moment of time in which nothing existed. "We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago. (Hawking 1993:46)" Options with quantum gravity: 1. We still have a first moment in time. 2. The singularity is removed by some quantum mechanical effect. When we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a situation of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that permits time to continue indefinitely into the past. 3. Something new and different and quantum mechanical happens to time. Possibly we reach a state where it is no longer suitable to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in series, one after another. In this case, there is perhaps no singularity, but additionally it also does not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was exceptionally dense. (Smolin 1997:82) Possibility 1 gives us the identical situation as that described by non quantum mechanics Big Bang theory: a universe which exists at every instant of time, and hence cannot have "come from" nothing. Possibility 2 arrives at a universe stretching back infinitely in time, similarly eliminating the supposed issues raised by the universe "coming from" nothing. Possibility 3 (which is the scenario proposed in the quantum cosmological speculations of Hawking) again gives us a universe that cannot "come from" nothing, as the very concept of time-ordering ceases to have meaning in the early universe. In fact, then, under possible options for a Big Bang supplemented with quantum gravity, it would still be mistaken to characterise the Big Bang as stipulating that the universe "came from nothing." On each possibility, there is no moment of time at which the universe did not exist. Other theories of an uncaused/self causing universe can wait next round. :)

Puck

"It is my position in this debate that atheists believe that something came from nothing. 1. There is a sequence of events. 2. Somewhere, the sequence of events must stop. From 1 and 2, we can clearly see that there is a 'first cause', as many call it. This first cause existed, yet did not come from anything. There was no thing it came from, it simply existed/happened." I will not argue the causal god side of this debate as that is unnecessary. "no thing" and "nothing" are separable outside of semantics and it was a clever ploy, but one I challenge. "no thing" is a causal statement; "nothing" is a form of negative existence. I clearly stated "nothing". Your syllogism is flawed by the way. No premise states anything about "cause". Big Bang theory uses Einstein's general theory of relativity to draw the history of the universe back to a moment in time when the entire universe was concentrated in a point of infinite density, called a singularity. This account however ignores quantum mechanics: at a point in time called the Planck time, the universe was small enough to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. To know accurately what impact these effects would have had on the universe before Planck-time requires a theory of quantum gravity, which combines general relativity with quantum mechanics (so we have at least 2 possibilities). General relativity: One outcome of relativistic physics is that space and time (spacetime) are themselves inseparable aspects of the universe. Consequently, by general relativity alone, the origin of the universe was the origin of space and time. There cannot have been time prior to (or space outside of) the initial singularity; "prior to" (or "outside of") the singularity makes no sense. In turn, this shows that the vision of the universe somehow "arriving from" an elemental nothingness, far from being a proviso of Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it. For the universe to have "come from" nothing there would have to be a point when, there was nothing, and then, at some later point in time, the universe suddenly existed. One cannot argue that the universe existed at the first moment of time, and then, in the next breath, imply that there was a time before this first moment of time in which nothing existed. "We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago. (Hawking 1993:46)" Options with quantum gravity: 1. We still have a first moment in time. 2. The singularity is removed by some quantum mechanical effect. When we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a situation of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that permits time to continue indefinitely into the past. 3. Something new and different and quantum mechanical happens to time. Possibly we reach a state where it is no longer suitable to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in series, one after another. In this case, there is perhaps no singularity, but additionally it also does not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was exceptionally dense. (Smolin 1997:82) Possibility 1 gives us the identical situation as that described by non quantum mechanics Big Bang theory: a universe which exists at every instant of time, and hence cannot have "come from" nothing. Possibility 2 arrives at a universe stretching back infinitely in time, similarly eliminating the supposed issues raised by the universe "coming from" nothing. Possibility 3 (which is the scenario proposed in the quantum cosmological speculations of Hawking) again gives us a universe that cannot "come from" nothing, as the very concept of time-ordering ceases to have meaning in the early universe. In fact, then, under possible options for a Big Bang supplemented with quantum gravity, it would still be mistaken to characterise the Big Bang as stipulating that the universe "came from nothing." On each possibility, there is no moment of time at which the universe did not exist. Other theories of an uncaused/self causing universe can wait next round. :)

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/

The definitions: 1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses. Your example "...I turned in nothing" The above example is a causal chain before "nothing". It is an erroneous example as we are discussing the 'beginning'. ""Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything." Again incorrect; negative state of existence if you refer to the definition would be timespace with no parts i.e. nothing. As I showed in R2 'nothing' was never in place at all. There was only the universe. "Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." I said your syllogism was flawed. That infers nothing about causation itself, its validity or existence as a universal force. Again this is debate is not about any theistic notions of god as the first cause. "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous. "My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe." Again, the use of "anything" is incorrect. If I was arguing "anything" I would have stated as such. As such your argument here fails again. Saying the universe did not come from anything therefore it came from nothing fails on its own as well. The universe did not "come from", it always has been. "My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity." Wrong again. ;) A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well. So I will be "generous" as you put it and provide the most recent theory of a self causing universe. A self causing universe compliant with Big Bang Theory removes all essences of "something coming from nothing". <URL>... There really is nothing left to argue. As an atheist, removing god as a first cause does not necessitate the universe "coming from nothing". Relativity and quantum theory both state that at no point was there "nothing" no time when "something" was not there. Attempts to derail the meaning of "nothing" are equally pointless. Regards, Puck

Puck

The definitions: 1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses. Your example "...I turned in nothing" The above example is a causal chain before "nothing". It is an erroneous example as we are discussing the 'beginning'. ""Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything." Again incorrect; negative state of existence if you refer to the definition would be timespace with no parts i.e. nothing. As I showed in R2 'nothing' was never in place at all. There was only the universe. "Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." I said your syllogism was flawed. That infers nothing about causation itself, its validity or existence as a universal force. Again this is debate is not about any theistic notions of god as the first cause. "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous. "My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe." Again, the use of "anything" is incorrect. If I was arguing "anything" I would have stated as such. As such your argument here fails again. Saying the universe did not come from anything therefore it came from nothing fails on its own as well. The universe did not "come from", it always has been. "My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity." Wrong again. ;) A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well. So I will be "generous" as you put it and provide the most recent theory of a self causing universe. A self causing universe compliant with Big Bang Theory removes all essences of "something coming from nothing". http://www.infidels.org... There really is nothing left to argue. As an atheist, removing god as a first cause does not necessitate the universe "coming from nothing". Relativity and quantum theory both state that at no point was there "nothing" no time when "something" was not there. Attempts to derail the meaning of "nothing" are equally pointless. Regards, Puck

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/

Since my opponent has not made a case for his side, I will simply state my case, plain and simple. It is my position in this debate that atheists believe that something came from nothing. However, I will go much further than that. I will argue that this is true for everyone, not just atheists. Here's a premise we can all agree on. 1. There is a sequence of events. This is obviously true. This paragraph is shown on this debate. This came from me hitting submit once I had my argument written out. This came from me seeing this debate and accepting the challenge. Etc. We can hypothetically track this back to the beginning of the universe. If the universe came from something, we can hypothetically track it back to the beginning of that thing. If that thing came from something, we can track it back to the beginning of this new thing. However, we are left in a conundrum. If these things all came from something, there would be an infinite list of causes - so that the beginning could never truly be reached. The only solution here is to either keep going, or just figure that something somewhere in the line indeed did not come from anything. Even if you believe the cause of the universe's existence was a god, you must believe that something came from nothing. In this case, the something would be that god. Or if that god did come from something, then it would be whatever caused that god, or whatever caused that, etc. However, it can be agreed upon by atheists and theists alike that: 2. Somewhere, the sequence of events must stop. From 1 and 2, we can clearly see that there is a 'first cause', as many call it. This first cause existed, yet did not come from anything. There was no thing it came from, it simply existed/happened. And that, as they say, is that.

beem0r

Since my opponent has not made a case for his side, I will simply state my case, plain and simple. It is my position in this debate that atheists believe that something came from nothing. However, I will go much further than that. I will argue that this is true for everyone, not just atheists. Here's a premise we can all agree on. 1. There is a sequence of events. This is obviously true. This paragraph is shown on this debate. This came from me hitting submit once I had my argument written out. This came from me seeing this debate and accepting the challenge. Etc. We can hypothetically track this back to the beginning of the universe. If the universe came from something, we can hypothetically track it back to the beginning of that thing. If that thing came from something, we can track it back to the beginning of this new thing. However, we are left in a conundrum. If these things all came from something, there would be an infinite list of causes - so that the beginning could never truly be reached. The only solution here is to either keep going, or just figure that something somewhere in the line indeed did not come from anything. Even if you believe the cause of the universe's existence was a god, you must believe that something came from nothing. In this case, the something would be that god. Or if that god did come from something, then it would be whatever caused that god, or whatever caused that, etc. However, it can be agreed upon by atheists and theists alike that: 2. Somewhere, the sequence of events must stop. From 1 and 2, we can clearly see that there is a 'first cause', as many call it. This first cause existed, yet did not come from anything. There was no thing it came from, it simply existed/happened. And that, as they say, is that.

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/

My opponent does two things right from the get-go. First, he tells me that 'coming from no thing' and 'coming from nothing' are completely different. Second, he says my whole argument is meaningless, since I spoke of causes, and the resolution uses different meaning. First, let me address the definition of nothing. Nothing: 1 : not any thing : no thing Source: Merriam-Webster For example: If you ask me what I turned in for an English assignment, and I answer that I turned in nothing, I am stating that I did not turn anything in; that there was no thing I turned in. It does NOT mean that I turned in a negative state of existence, or whatever ridiculous definition my opponent wants you to use. In this same way, something coming from nothing simply means that for some thing, it did not come from any thing, there was no thing from which it came. "Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything. Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything. A large portion of my opponent's round was targeted at the bad definition of nothing. As I stated, nothing literally means 'no thing.' My opponent's definition is simply wrong, and I challenge him to show otherwise. I not only provided a definition from a reliable dictionary, but also a use in context to show that my definition is the correct one to use. My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe. My opponent also suggests that there could be a point when moments following each other in a sequence no longer exists, so that things at one moment are not caused by something else. In this case, too, this is something coming from nothing. Something being whatever it is that isn't being preceded by a causal moment. My opponent's entire case is working to show that the universe possibly did not come from anything. However, using the correct definition of nothing, we see that he is indeed fulfilling my resolution for me with his possibilities. My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity. And the floor's back to my opponent.

beem0r

My opponent does two things right from the get-go. First, he tells me that 'coming from no thing' and 'coming from nothing' are completely different. Second, he says my whole argument is meaningless, since I spoke of causes, and the resolution uses different meaning. First, let me address the definition of nothing. Nothing: 1 : not any thing : no thing Source: Merriam-Webster For example: If you ask me what I turned in for an English assignment, and I answer that I turned in nothing, I am stating that I did not turn anything in; that there was no thing I turned in. It does NOT mean that I turned in a negative state of existence, or whatever ridiculous definition my opponent wants you to use. In this same way, something coming from nothing simply means that for some thing, it did not come from any thing, there was no thing from which it came. "Something comes from nothing" doesn't mean there's some 'negative state of existence,' and all of a sudden it pops out a something. It simply means there is at least one thing that did not come from anything. Next, the accusation that cause is irresolutional. This is ridiculous as well. It is obvious that a first cause, such as the Judeo-Christian god, by the very definition does not 'come from' anything. This is true for naturalistic first causes as well, such as the universe for those who believe the universe did not have a cause outside itself. The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything. A large portion of my opponent's round was targeted at the bad definition of nothing. As I stated, nothing literally means 'no thing.' My opponent's definition is simply wrong, and I challenge him to show otherwise. I not only provided a definition from a reliable dictionary, but also a use in context to show that my definition is the correct one to use. My opponent lays out a case where the universe simply existed forever. In this case, the universe itself is the thing which does not come from anything. Therefore, "something comes from nothing" is true here as well, the something here being the universe. My opponent also suggests that there could be a point when moments following each other in a sequence no longer exists, so that things at one moment are not caused by something else. In this case, too, this is something coming from nothing. Something being whatever it is that isn't being preceded by a causal moment. My opponent's entire case is working to show that the universe possibly did not come from anything. However, using the correct definition of nothing, we see that he is indeed fulfilling my resolution for me with his possibilities. My opponent says he will show more examples of an uncaused universe next round [who knows why he would do that, since CAUSE has nothing to do with the resolution, remember?]. Anyway, I welcome this, and I thank my opponent in advance for his generosity. And the floor's back to my opponent.

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/

My opponent first provides us with the other definition. I quote my opponent here: "1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses." WHAT? As can be seen? How is that? Let's just plug definition 2 into the resolution, and see if it even makes a small morsel of sense. An atheist must believe "something comes from no part." "As can be seen," this makes absolutely no sense. Note that my opponent gives no REASON why his definition is superior, besides "as can be seen." Let us consider: 1> "No part" does not mean "A negative state of existence", "Nothingness", or "the state of there being nothing." No matter how you slice it. 2> My definition makes sense not only literally, but colloquially. Suppose a person believes the universe was uncaused. Suppose this person is asked "What did the universe come from?". Consider he gives the response, "Nothing". This is a truthful response. 3> My definition appears first, and it makes sense in this context. Therefore, it should be used. So with that, the definition issue should be dealt with. I said: "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." My opponent said: "Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous." However, let us look at the definition. "NOT ANYTHING" If something did NOT come from ANYTHING then it came from NOTHING. Or if you prefer, it came from "NO THING", which is the same definition [definition 1 from Webster]. Any way you slice it, not having a cause does indeed mean coming from no thing. My opponent uses this twice as a rebuttal. Did he not see that "Not anything" was a definition of "Nothing"? It's the first one listed, for god's sake! My points still stand. Not coming from anything is the same as coming from not anything. I just rearranged the words to make it sound better [there's hardly anywhere where the words "not anything" would go well right next to each other]. My opponent says: "A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well." If the concept of 'coming from something' is destroyed, then there is nothing to come from. Just as the concept of my own telepathic powers is meaningless right now, yet I am still telepathically communicating nothing. [Since this literally only means I am not telepathically communicating anything]. So let's pretend causation is out of the picture. Things now don't require causes. First, let us realize there is still some point where this causal chain breaks - namely, the point where causality becomes meaningless. The "first cause" in this case would be the first thing that was not itself caused. As I have shown time and time again, anything without a cause automatically 'comes from nothing,' since it does not come from anything [else it would have a cause]. Even so, once causality is removed, my job is infinitely easier. Now, it is not just the first cause that comes from nothing, but also any outliers that are simply not part of any sequence of events. Since they didn't come from anything, they came from nothing. "Nothing" does not mean "NOTHINGNESS" [which is the state of nothing existing]. My opponent then provides a link. He wants me to read it. But why? I'm not here to read other people's theories. If you want me to respond to something, type it yourself. Links are meant as REFERENCES, not as argumentation. You have to do the arguing. Ironically, my opponent closes with this: "There really is nothing left to argue." Indeed. There is not anything left to argue. There is no thing left to argue. I think I've made my point.

beem0r

My opponent first provides us with the other definition. I quote my opponent here: "1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses." WHAT? As can be seen? How is that? Let's just plug definition 2 into the resolution, and see if it even makes a small morsel of sense. An atheist must believe "something comes from no part." "As can be seen," this makes absolutely no sense. Note that my opponent gives no REASON why his definition is superior, besides "as can be seen." Let us consider: 1> "No part" does not mean "A negative state of existence", "Nothingness", or "the state of there being nothing." No matter how you slice it. 2> My definition makes sense not only literally, but colloquially. Suppose a person believes the universe was uncaused. Suppose this person is asked "What did the universe come from?". Consider he gives the response, "Nothing". This is a truthful response. 3> My definition appears first, and it makes sense in this context. Therefore, it should be used. So with that, the definition issue should be dealt with. I said: "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." My opponent said: "Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous." However, let us look at the definition. "NOT ANYTHING" If something did NOT come from ANYTHING then it came from NOTHING. Or if you prefer, it came from "NO THING", which is the same definition [definition 1 from Webster]. Any way you slice it, not having a cause does indeed mean coming from no thing. My opponent uses this twice as a rebuttal. Did he not see that "Not anything" was a definition of "Nothing"? It's the first one listed, for god's sake! My points still stand. Not coming from anything is the same as coming from not anything. I just rearranged the words to make it sound better [there's hardly anywhere where the words "not anything" would go well right next to each other]. My opponent says: "A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well." If the concept of 'coming from something' is destroyed, then there is nothing to come from. Just as the concept of my own telepathic powers is meaningless right now, yet I am still telepathically communicating nothing. [Since this literally only means I am not telepathically communicating anything]. So let's pretend causation is out of the picture. Things now don't require causes. First, let us realize there is still some point where this causal chain breaks - namely, the point where causality becomes meaningless. The "first cause" in this case would be the first thing that was not itself caused. As I have shown time and time again, anything without a cause automatically 'comes from nothing,' since it does not come from anything [else it would have a cause]. Even so, once causality is removed, my job is infinitely easier. Now, it is not just the first cause that comes from nothing, but also any outliers that are simply not part of any sequence of events. Since they didn't come from anything, they came from nothing. "Nothing" does not mean "NOTHINGNESS" [which is the state of nothing existing]. My opponent then provides a link. He wants me to read it. But why? I'm not here to read other people's theories. If you want me to respond to something, type it yourself. Links are meant as REFERENCES, not as argumentation. You have to do the arguing. Ironically, my opponent closes with this: "There really is nothing left to argue." Indeed. There is not anything left to argue. There is no thing left to argue. I think I've made my point.

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/

Entire class - All of the students that are being taught by one teacher at one time (in this case, the class is assumed to be about twenty to thirty students, and in America) Punished - Punish - to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation ( <URL>... ) Actions - acts of will ( <URL>... ) A few - Up to five Students - those who attends a school ( <URL>... ) Countless times, I am in a class where some kids start goofing off, and then the teacher comes in and decides to punish everybody. I think that students should only ever be punished for their own actions. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. For this debate, by "never," I assume the class to be under normal, modern circumstances.

mongeese

Entire class - All of the students that are being taught by one teacher at one time (in this case, the class is assumed to be about twenty to thirty students, and in America) Punished - Punish - to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Actions - acts of will ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) A few - Up to five Students - those who attends a school ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Countless times, I am in a class where some kids start goofing off, and then the teacher comes in and decides to punish everybody. I think that students should only ever be punished for their own actions. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. For this debate, by "never," I assume the class to be under normal, modern circumstances.

Education

An-entire-class-should-never-be-punished-for-the-actions-of-one-or-a-few-students./1/

"1. Sometimes, teachers have no other choice. In some instances, since the teacher did not see what actually happened, he or she is put into a position to where they can either punish no one or everyone. Since punishing no one would only encourage future misbehavior, punishing everything is the only way to effectively punish the class." Teachers have the choice of being watchful. If a teacher pays attention to what happens, this wouldn't be a problem. Additionally, because this targets everyone, it punishes innocent people, and I think that not punishing anybody would be a better alternative, in this case. I mean, the teacher isn't exactly sure if one of his own students committed the action, if he assumes that an action has been committed. "2. As an 'innocent' student, you have the chance to save the entire class from punishment. In most cases, at least in my experience, most teachers will say something along the lines of 'Tell me who did this or y'all are all going to be in trouble!' (I'm from the south, my teachers say y'all). You, as an innocent member of the class, have the possibility to say 'Person A did it!' and save you and others in your class from being punished. However, since no one speaks up, the class is just begging for a punishment." Any teacher should realize that people don't rat each other out like that. Telling on someone else in front of the rest of the class can lead to huge downfall in reputation, especially if the wrongdoers are popular. To have a social life, a kid has no choice but to take the punishment with the rest of the class. This makes the tool completely ineffective. "3. Is the punishment really all that severe? I've been in the same situation several times before, but the punishment has never been that severe. I mean, I've never received a demerit or detention for something I didn't do. The worst that I've received is maybe 'silent lunch,' where all students are prohibited from talking during lunch." I've had to sit out from recess before because of a few kids in my class. Once, in the class down the hall, something was broken in the classroom, or something of the sort, and the teacher suspected that one of the kids in her class had done it. Therefore, she said that every student in her class had to sit out from recess every day until the kid turned himself or herself in. Other students were incapable of turning in the wrongdoer, because only the wrongdoer knew who he or she was. This ended up lasting about a week until the kid turned himself in, and a week without recess is pretty severe in fifth grade. "Now, it's your turn to attack my points and establish your own." Alright, then. 1. Punishing innocent people is unethical. They didn't do anything wrong. Thus, they don't deserve the punishment. And yet, they receive it. How would you like it if you had to sit out of gym or recess every day for the entire year until a student, who may or may not be in your class, who you didn't know turned himself in? This isn't a rhetorical question; it is a question to be answered. 2. It is ineffective. Quite often, the wrongdoer isn't even part of the class that is being punished. Thus, punishing the wrong people gets nothing done. Additionally, students don't really care about punishment if the entire class goes along with them. They only care if they get singled out. I have established my points, and countered yours. Fire at will.

mongeese

"1. Sometimes, teachers have no other choice. In some instances, since the teacher did not see what actually happened, he or she is put into a position to where they can either punish no one or everyone. Since punishing no one would only encourage future misbehavior, punishing everything is the only way to effectively punish the class." Teachers have the choice of being watchful. If a teacher pays attention to what happens, this wouldn't be a problem. Additionally, because this targets everyone, it punishes innocent people, and I think that not punishing anybody would be a better alternative, in this case. I mean, the teacher isn't exactly sure if one of his own students committed the action, if he assumes that an action has been committed. "2. As an 'innocent' student, you have the chance to save the entire class from punishment. In most cases, at least in my experience, most teachers will say something along the lines of 'Tell me who did this or y'all are all going to be in trouble!' (I'm from the south, my teachers say y'all). You, as an innocent member of the class, have the possibility to say 'Person A did it!' and save you and others in your class from being punished. However, since no one speaks up, the class is just begging for a punishment." Any teacher should realize that people don't rat each other out like that. Telling on someone else in front of the rest of the class can lead to huge downfall in reputation, especially if the wrongdoers are popular. To have a social life, a kid has no choice but to take the punishment with the rest of the class. This makes the tool completely ineffective. "3. Is the punishment really all that severe? I've been in the same situation several times before, but the punishment has never been that severe. I mean, I've never received a demerit or detention for something I didn't do. The worst that I've received is maybe 'silent lunch,' where all students are prohibited from talking during lunch." I've had to sit out from recess before because of a few kids in my class. Once, in the class down the hall, something was broken in the classroom, or something of the sort, and the teacher suspected that one of the kids in her class had done it. Therefore, she said that every student in her class had to sit out from recess every day until the kid turned himself or herself in. Other students were incapable of turning in the wrongdoer, because only the wrongdoer knew who he or she was. This ended up lasting about a week until the kid turned himself in, and a week without recess is pretty severe in fifth grade. "Now, it's your turn to attack my points and establish your own." Alright, then. 1. Punishing innocent people is unethical. They didn't do anything wrong. Thus, they don't deserve the punishment. And yet, they receive it. How would you like it if you had to sit out of gym or recess every day for the entire year until a student, who may or may not be in your class, who you didn't know turned himself in? This isn't a rhetorical question; it is a question to be answered. 2. It is ineffective. Quite often, the wrongdoer isn't even part of the class that is being punished. Thus, punishing the wrong people gets nothing done. Additionally, students don't really care about punishment if the entire class goes along with them. They only care if they get singled out. I have established my points, and countered yours. Fire at will.

Education

An-entire-class-should-never-be-punished-for-the-actions-of-one-or-a-few-students./1/

"Murders should never happen, because the police should know everything that relates to the safety of a community" However, if you do have a murder, and you end up with five suspects, with no evidence that could single any one of them out, what should you do? You should let them all go with a warning. "Not punishing anyone would be better?" Once one incident happens, the teacher should prepare for another incident. Yelling would probably get the job done. "Who said it had to be in front of the whole class? You could approach the teacher after class, and I'm sure the teacher would keep your name confidential." Nope. Usually, the punishment occurs directly after the incident is discovered, such as doing tons of push-ups or running a ridiculous number of lines. And nobody would want to go out of their way to turn in their classmate, especially when it is obvious that the word of what you did would spread. Also, what if you don't know who it was? "This is the problem with Generation Y, they see everything as an entitlement." Younger kids tend to need recess. If the police took away your driver's license because you might have been involved in a driving accident, but you really weren't, would that be just? No. The ability to drive is also a privilege, but people tend to need it. "...their could have been worse things that could have happened." Huh? So, if a guy steals your driver's license, you say, "Well, that's okay, because at least he didn't steal my keys!"? No. "And punishing innocent people might be unethical, but isn't the teacher the one who decides what is unethical or not, he or she is the utmost authority in the class." The teacher does not decide what is ethical and what is not. If Barack Obama got to decide what is ethical, it would result in many more abortions and affirmative action and so on, and if the king of the land got to control ethics, everybody would be his slave. What the people feel is a factor that determines whether or not something should be done. You still didn't answer the question. "I actually think it gets a lot done. It encourages students not to misbehave in the future, especially when the teacher isn't looking." Well, yes, it has a little bit of benefit, but this does not outweigh the negative points. And as for your other point, it is not right to punish everybody in that situation. The failures should be fired, or their wages should be cut, and you should be promoted. That would be the right thing to do. Thank you for reading.

mongeese

"Murders should never happen, because the police should know everything that relates to the safety of a community" However, if you do have a murder, and you end up with five suspects, with no evidence that could single any one of them out, what should you do? You should let them all go with a warning. "Not punishing anyone would be better?" Once one incident happens, the teacher should prepare for another incident. Yelling would probably get the job done. "Who said it had to be in front of the whole class? You could approach the teacher after class, and I'm sure the teacher would keep your name confidential." Nope. Usually, the punishment occurs directly after the incident is discovered, such as doing tons of push-ups or running a ridiculous number of lines. And nobody would want to go out of their way to turn in their classmate, especially when it is obvious that the word of what you did would spread. Also, what if you don't know who it was? "This is the problem with Generation Y, they see everything as an entitlement." Younger kids tend to need recess. If the police took away your driver's license because you might have been involved in a driving accident, but you really weren't, would that be just? No. The ability to drive is also a privilege, but people tend to need it. "...their could have been worse things that could have happened." Huh? So, if a guy steals your driver's license, you say, "Well, that's okay, because at least he didn't steal my keys!"? No. "And punishing innocent people might be unethical, but isn't the teacher the one who decides what is unethical or not, he or she is the utmost authority in the class." The teacher does not decide what is ethical and what is not. If Barack Obama got to decide what is ethical, it would result in many more abortions and affirmative action and so on, and if the king of the land got to control ethics, everybody would be his slave. What the people feel is a factor that determines whether or not something should be done. You still didn't answer the question. "I actually think it gets a lot done. It encourages students not to misbehave in the future, especially when the teacher isn't looking." Well, yes, it has a little bit of benefit, but this does not outweigh the negative points. And as for your other point, it is not right to punish everybody in that situation. The failures should be fired, or their wages should be cut, and you should be promoted. That would be the right thing to do. Thank you for reading.

Education

An-entire-class-should-never-be-punished-for-the-actions-of-one-or-a-few-students./1/

All arguments extended. This debate is pretty much over. Vote PRO.

mongeese

All arguments extended. This debate is pretty much over. Vote PRO.

Education

An-entire-class-should-never-be-punished-for-the-actions-of-one-or-a-few-students./1/

We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1). My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities. This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem. Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does. I would like to thank Volkov for the opportunity to debate this topic again, and I look forward to his rebuttal which will hopefully be of a higher standard than Nags (no offence bud). (1) Page 3 <URL>...

Rascal

We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1). My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities. This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem. Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does. I would like to thank Volkov for the opportunity to debate this topic again, and I look forward to his rebuttal which will hopefully be of a higher standard than Nags (no offence bud). (1) Page 3 http://www.un.org...

Society

An-non-interventionist-strategy-is-the-best-way-to-curb-population-growth/2/

Andrew Jackson hated central banks. He deliberately acted to destroy the Bank of the United States, the central bank at the time. He believed in the value of specie-- gold or silver money, as opposed to the fiat money represented by the twenty dollar Federal Reserve Note. Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between honest men. All putting Andrew Jackson's face on a fiat note distributed by the Federal Reserve Bank accomplishes is cheapening the value of his legacy, and showing off the government's peculiar mix of ignorance or lack of integrity, however that mix may be composed. Eliminate the 20 dollar bill (and therefore Jackson's face from it), move to a new, commodity-backed currency, then have Jackson's face on that if you want, anything else is dishonest. If you seek to keep fiat money, find someone else to idolize on it, perhaps a picture of FDR confiscating the gold of every citizen who kept it.

Ragnar_Rahl

Andrew Jackson hated central banks. He deliberately acted to destroy the Bank of the United States, the central bank at the time. He believed in the value of specie-- gold or silver money, as opposed to the fiat money represented by the twenty dollar Federal Reserve Note. Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between honest men. All putting Andrew Jackson's face on a fiat note distributed by the Federal Reserve Bank accomplishes is cheapening the value of his legacy, and showing off the government's peculiar mix of ignorance or lack of integrity, however that mix may be composed. Eliminate the 20 dollar bill (and therefore Jackson's face from it), move to a new, commodity-backed currency, then have Jackson's face on that if you want, anything else is dishonest. If you seek to keep fiat money, find someone else to idolize on it, perhaps a picture of FDR confiscating the gold of every citizen who kept it.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-bill./1/

"But this makes no sense however for you did say that, "Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between good common men" since this statement has no source cited to it, it must be an opinion." And? What of it? Are you going to dispute that paper which has no value except that derived from the fact that you have to pay taxes in it or go to prison represents the force of a tyrant? And I used the wording "honest men," not "good common men." :). "t he is also saying that Andrew Jackson's pecuniary ideology was ethical and echoed "an exchange of values between honest men" which helps my side in saying that Andrew Jackson was the people's president." Well, not quite. It would help your case, if the $20 bill were as ethical, which is not the case. Being "the people's president" is largely irrelevant to this of course, as that would be mere ad populum. "But to entertain my opponent's ridiculous claim, the cost of making a printing machine plus the initial cost of the raw material that would be used in the machine would make no sense." A currency can be backed by commodity without being made of it.It's merely a matter of redesigning the paper to distinguish it from the old notes, and keeping enough commodity on hand to exchange for the notes on demand. "Not only would this cost an obscene amount, but in this economy we cannot afford things as frivolous as this. " "This economy" was caused in significant part by the fiat system and the deficit spending, etc, that comes with it. There is nothing frivolous about preventing recessions like the current one from happening. "Our currency is fine the way it is" It is fine to point a gun at someone and tell them they had better pretend a piece of paper has a value it doesn't, and then hand it over after accepting it on such false premises? "and changing it now would not be logical in our current recession." Generally, when one has a problem, I was under the impression the logical response was to stop doing the sorts of things that help that problem to happen. Having a fiat currency is one of them. Note, too, the resolution does not specify time-- if you prefer to do it a few years from now instead, my point remains intact. "It's better to keep things the way they are and not dishonor any presidents by taking them off currency." We are dishonoring him by keeping him on. Putting Andrew Jackson on a Federal Reserve Note to "honor him" is roughly comparable to worshipping Jesus by frequenting a prostitute at a Greek temple, or wearing KKK robes with Martin Luther King's initials inscribed over the heart. " Another point made by my opponent was that Andrew Jackson hated centralized banks, and that he went so far as to DESTROY the Bank of the United States. And I could not agree more with this statement. This bank of the United States was at the time favoring the Northern States over the southern states in the distribution of taxpayer dollars. This was making the south angrier and angrier and then when Congress passed extra Tariffs on imported goods, John C. Calhoun, from North Carolina, wrote a doctrine of Nullification and threatened to secede from the Union! Faced with an extremely hard choice, Andrew Jackson had to get rid of the national bank to preserve the Union of the united states." This is absurd revisionism. Andrew Jackson did not cite any "regional favoritism," he cited publicly his concerns of the cost of a monopoly with no corresponding benefits. Tariffs were a largely unrelated issue. " On a side note to the previous point... The National Bank did not reflect American ideals. It was a government owned corporation and in this sense, The National Bank was a communist business." As a matter of fact, Jackson's veto message cited the nature of the bank in question as being owned in large part by the wealthy, including many foreign owners. It was, in short, "privately owned," but created by an act of Congress and controlled accordingly-- more or less the same as our current Federal Reserve. If you wish to denounce the National Bank as communist, you will have to denounce the Federal Reserve on the same grounds, since it had similar ownership structure. "My final word on this particular point is that Jackson actually did not "destroy" the national bank. He simply did not renew the bank's charter so the bank slowly, but surely, closed down, without any harm to the economy, or the employees of the national bank." This is also unwarranted revisionism. Jackson arranged, through his Treasury secretary, to remove the deposits of the government from the bank. The suddenness probably did cause short term economic harm, though I would hold such as justified by the gains. He did not merely wait on his heels and refuse to renew the charter, he took proactive action to, in his wording, "kill" the bank as quick as he thought he could. "In the word's of Bert Lance "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Why should we fix the $20 bill, if it "ain't" broke." It is broke, because the dollar currency itself is broke, indeed, it was created that way. It is losing it's position in the market, even among other tyrant currencies, and will be losing out even more as our deficit continues to grow.

Ragnar_Rahl

"But this makes no sense however for you did say that, "Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between good common men" since this statement has no source cited to it, it must be an opinion." And? What of it? Are you going to dispute that paper which has no value except that derived from the fact that you have to pay taxes in it or go to prison represents the force of a tyrant? And I used the wording "honest men," not "good common men." :). "t he is also saying that Andrew Jackson's pecuniary ideology was ethical and echoed "an exchange of values between honest men" which helps my side in saying that Andrew Jackson was the people's president." Well, not quite. It would help your case, if the $20 bill were as ethical, which is not the case. Being "the people's president" is largely irrelevant to this of course, as that would be mere ad populum. "But to entertain my opponent's ridiculous claim, the cost of making a printing machine plus the initial cost of the raw material that would be used in the machine would make no sense." A currency can be backed by commodity without being made of it.It's merely a matter of redesigning the paper to distinguish it from the old notes, and keeping enough commodity on hand to exchange for the notes on demand. "Not only would this cost an obscene amount, but in this economy we cannot afford things as frivolous as this. " "This economy" was caused in significant part by the fiat system and the deficit spending, etc, that comes with it. There is nothing frivolous about preventing recessions like the current one from happening. "Our currency is fine the way it is" It is fine to point a gun at someone and tell them they had better pretend a piece of paper has a value it doesn't, and then hand it over after accepting it on such false premises? "and changing it now would not be logical in our current recession." Generally, when one has a problem, I was under the impression the logical response was to stop doing the sorts of things that help that problem to happen. Having a fiat currency is one of them. Note, too, the resolution does not specify time-- if you prefer to do it a few years from now instead, my point remains intact. "It's better to keep things the way they are and not dishonor any presidents by taking them off currency." We are dishonoring him by keeping him on. Putting Andrew Jackson on a Federal Reserve Note to "honor him" is roughly comparable to worshipping Jesus by frequenting a prostitute at a Greek temple, or wearing KKK robes with Martin Luther King's initials inscribed over the heart. " Another point made by my opponent was that Andrew Jackson hated centralized banks, and that he went so far as to DESTROY the Bank of the United States. And I could not agree more with this statement. This bank of the United States was at the time favoring the Northern States over the southern states in the distribution of taxpayer dollars. This was making the south angrier and angrier and then when Congress passed extra Tariffs on imported goods, John C. Calhoun, from North Carolina, wrote a doctrine of Nullification and threatened to secede from the Union! Faced with an extremely hard choice, Andrew Jackson had to get rid of the national bank to preserve the Union of the united states." This is absurd revisionism. Andrew Jackson did not cite any "regional favoritism," he cited publicly his concerns of the cost of a monopoly with no corresponding benefits. Tariffs were a largely unrelated issue. " On a side note to the previous point... The National Bank did not reflect American ideals. It was a government owned corporation and in this sense, The National Bank was a communist business." As a matter of fact, Jackson's veto message cited the nature of the bank in question as being owned in large part by the wealthy, including many foreign owners. It was, in short, "privately owned," but created by an act of Congress and controlled accordingly-- more or less the same as our current Federal Reserve. If you wish to denounce the National Bank as communist, you will have to denounce the Federal Reserve on the same grounds, since it had similar ownership structure. "My final word on this particular point is that Jackson actually did not "destroy" the national bank. He simply did not renew the bank's charter so the bank slowly, but surely, closed down, without any harm to the economy, or the employees of the national bank." This is also unwarranted revisionism. Jackson arranged, through his Treasury secretary, to remove the deposits of the government from the bank. The suddenness probably did cause short term economic harm, though I would hold such as justified by the gains. He did not merely wait on his heels and refuse to renew the charter, he took proactive action to, in his wording, "kill" the bank as quick as he thought he could. "In the word's of Bert Lance "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Why should we fix the $20 bill, if it "ain't" broke." It is broke, because the dollar currency itself is broke, indeed, it was created that way. It is losing it's position in the market, even among other tyrant currencies, and will be losing out even more as our deficit continues to grow.

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-bill./1/

"That point was "Andrew Jackson did not approve of fiat money", to quote my opponent, "this is unwarranted revisionism". Andrew Jackson may have favored commodity backed currency during his presidency, but that is only because he feared for the country's economic welfare. He thought, by passing the Specie Circular in 1836 he would prevent a future economic downturn when people started buying large amounts of land in the west with "soft money"." This would be a valid argument if you could show where in his speeches or writings there is a "fiat is okay in the future, just not right now" statement. You can't, because there is no such place. "He did not express any ill feelings towards "fiat money"" Check his farewell address. <URL>... 's_Farewell_Address Or, translated out of politicese, he's attributed by Remini's Andrew Jackson and the Bank War as having called paper (fiat) "The instrument of the swindler and the cheat." "and popular belief between many historians, Michael Baradat to name one, is that he would not mind his face being on American currency." "Popular belief" with no verifiable referents is useless, even if it's professionals choosing to believe it without evidence. "He would be honored for his face to be portrayed on the most used bill in America and no amount of past ideals can change that. " No amount of the bill being against what he stood for can change whether he would feel honored about it? By that reasoning, John Locke should be quite honored to have his face on a Cuban ration. " My opponent's next point was much like his whole speech. It lacked evidence. Just because the teenager fighting for the proposition believes that "The $20 bill is unethical". This has no relevance for what we are talking about!" It does indeed have relevance. If the removal of a face from a bill is a necessary condition of the removal of a bill (which it is), and the removal of a bill is good, it follows that the removal of a face from a bill is good. " The next 4 points my opponent brought to the table were all largely irrelevant because they related not to Andrew Jackson but the $20 dollar bill it's self." Excuse me, but the "$20 bill" itself is part of the resolution as written. This means information about the 20 dollar bill is relevant. It does not ask "Should Andrew Jackson's face appear on whatever currency there should be?" but "should it appear on the 20 dollar bill?" "And since you have obviously failed to bring up a good argument for taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill that I have not brought substantial historical evidence to refute" Namedropping a random historian to whom I can find no references other than a facebook page, who cites no evidence, is not "substantial historical evidence." The ultimate authority on Andrew Jackson's opinion is Andrew Jackson, and his statements support my interpretation, not yours. " No president, no matter his monetary belief would object to being honored on a piece of American currency." My opponent has never even been 1 president, let alone all presidents. Therefore he has no possible knwledge of what "no president" would object to, unless he can find a statement from each and every one of them detailing their lack of objection. "In fact, the original case of Andrew Jackson being put on the $20 bill is proof showing that it was not offensive." Performing an act proves it is not offensive? This renders the concept "offense" without any possible referent in reality, in any situation. By your reasoning here, nothing on earth is offensive to anyone in any way. "For why would we purposely dishonor a true American Hero?" First, this is a misleading question. Dishonoring someone does not have to be purposive. It can result from stupidity as well as malice, something the sort of people making these decisions have never lacked for. Second, any reasonable person seeking to establish a policy will note that in most cases dishonoring in one way or another one's most important opponents is often helpful. Third, there is no "We." No unanimous action is being proposed. There is you, there is I, there are the bureaucrats, and there are a number of other parties, all with separate interests in this matter. "I am positive that when he was put on there was the object of controversy that he should not because of "..." reason. But obviously it was not a good enough reason to keep him from being accepted as the next candidate for the $20 bill." Again, appealing to the fact as justification for the prescription. This is not valid. Otherwise I could claim, by the same reasoning, that because Hitler was given power, obviously preventing genocide wasn't a good enough reason to prevent his attaining of power. "o taking Jackson off the $20 would in fact be dishonoring him because of this. But it wouldn't only dishonor Jackson, but America as a whole. For what is a country that takes someone off a piece of currency for objecting to something." For objecting to the currency? I dunno, a country with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity, for once? I object to the gallows, which is why you should not leave me on them, unless you wish to dishonor me. :). "But we're Americans! And we honor our presidents, so vote con, and respect not only Andrew Jackson, but AMERICA!" "Respect" does not consist of saying "Yes, continue doing wrong, your majesty, we love you for it." Respect consists of making recommendations that make sense. If you wish to respect either Jackson or the currency, let alone both, separate the two, they don't mix well. If you wish to respect America, give it a currency suitable for a free country. It is only if you disrespect all three that you can continue encouraging such a symbolic contradiction. " My opponent's next point was that Andrew Jackson didn't cite any regional favoritism while distributing taxpayer money. Did you even RESEARCH how money was distributed back then!?!?!??! Distributing taxpayer money was the job of congress, not the executive branch" You are twisting my words to mean something completely different than they do. This is not unique among your arguments here, merely a particularly egregious example. My point was that he didn't cite any regional favoritism IN the bank's actions (Obviously Congress delegated some distribution of money to the bank, or it wouldn't be a BANK), as the reason for his objections. He cited it's favor of those who become rich by government favor, and it's lack of redeeming qualities. Region was not mentioned. "Andrew Jackson had to close down the bank because it was the only thing that he COULD do to make sure each state was equally represented." Equal representation of the states WAS NOT MENTIONED as a reason when he closed down the bank. Pay attention to the reasons he actually gave, not the ones you imagine for him. " My opponent's next point was as drastically un-cited as the last point," You have yet to make a single citation of a specific work, the closest thing to it was a citation of a random historian, without even providing the historian's probably nonexistent reasoning. "Jackson did not "Remove" the deposits in the bank at all." <URL>... <URL>... "ackson then used his second presidential election victory later that year as a mandate to order the withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank in 1833" Sure seems like he did. Last I checked, he even rewarded Taney with a Supreme Court seat for carrying out his orders. " And finally, my opponent's last point had to do with the economic stature of the $20 dollar bill, which, yet again, has nothing to do with why Andrew Jackson should be removed from it." I wouldn't want my face on a symbol soon to be tarnished. Would you?

Ragnar_Rahl

"That point was "Andrew Jackson did not approve of fiat money", to quote my opponent, "this is unwarranted revisionism". Andrew Jackson may have favored commodity backed currency during his presidency, but that is only because he feared for the country's economic welfare. He thought, by passing the Specie Circular in 1836 he would prevent a future economic downturn when people started buying large amounts of land in the west with "soft money"." This would be a valid argument if you could show where in his speeches or writings there is a "fiat is okay in the future, just not right now" statement. You can't, because there is no such place. "He did not express any ill feelings towards "fiat money"" Check his farewell address. http://en.wikisource.org... 's_Farewell_Address Or, translated out of politicese, he's attributed by Remini's Andrew Jackson and the Bank War as having called paper (fiat) "The instrument of the swindler and the cheat." "and popular belief between many historians, Michael Baradat to name one, is that he would not mind his face being on American currency." "Popular belief" with no verifiable referents is useless, even if it's professionals choosing to believe it without evidence. "He would be honored for his face to be portrayed on the most used bill in America and no amount of past ideals can change that. " No amount of the bill being against what he stood for can change whether he would feel honored about it? By that reasoning, John Locke should be quite honored to have his face on a Cuban ration. " My opponent's next point was much like his whole speech. It lacked evidence. Just because the teenager fighting for the proposition believes that "The $20 bill is unethical". This has no relevance for what we are talking about!" It does indeed have relevance. If the removal of a face from a bill is a necessary condition of the removal of a bill (which it is), and the removal of a bill is good, it follows that the removal of a face from a bill is good. " The next 4 points my opponent brought to the table were all largely irrelevant because they related not to Andrew Jackson but the $20 dollar bill it's self." Excuse me, but the "$20 bill" itself is part of the resolution as written. This means information about the 20 dollar bill is relevant. It does not ask "Should Andrew Jackson's face appear on whatever currency there should be?" but "should it appear on the 20 dollar bill?" "And since you have obviously failed to bring up a good argument for taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill that I have not brought substantial historical evidence to refute" Namedropping a random historian to whom I can find no references other than a facebook page, who cites no evidence, is not "substantial historical evidence." The ultimate authority on Andrew Jackson's opinion is Andrew Jackson, and his statements support my interpretation, not yours. " No president, no matter his monetary belief would object to being honored on a piece of American currency." My opponent has never even been 1 president, let alone all presidents. Therefore he has no possible knwledge of what "no president" would object to, unless he can find a statement from each and every one of them detailing their lack of objection. "In fact, the original case of Andrew Jackson being put on the $20 bill is proof showing that it was not offensive." Performing an act proves it is not offensive? This renders the concept "offense" without any possible referent in reality, in any situation. By your reasoning here, nothing on earth is offensive to anyone in any way. "For why would we purposely dishonor a true American Hero?" First, this is a misleading question. Dishonoring someone does not have to be purposive. It can result from stupidity as well as malice, something the sort of people making these decisions have never lacked for. Second, any reasonable person seeking to establish a policy will note that in most cases dishonoring in one way or another one's most important opponents is often helpful. Third, there is no "We." No unanimous action is being proposed. There is you, there is I, there are the bureaucrats, and there are a number of other parties, all with separate interests in this matter. "I am positive that when he was put on there was the object of controversy that he should not because of "..." reason. But obviously it was not a good enough reason to keep him from being accepted as the next candidate for the $20 bill." Again, appealing to the fact as justification for the prescription. This is not valid. Otherwise I could claim, by the same reasoning, that because Hitler was given power, obviously preventing genocide wasn't a good enough reason to prevent his attaining of power. "o taking Jackson off the $20 would in fact be dishonoring him because of this. But it wouldn't only dishonor Jackson, but America as a whole. For what is a country that takes someone off a piece of currency for objecting to something." For objecting to the currency? I dunno, a country with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity, for once? I object to the gallows, which is why you should not leave me on them, unless you wish to dishonor me. :). "But we're Americans! And we honor our presidents, so vote con, and respect not only Andrew Jackson, but AMERICA!" "Respect" does not consist of saying "Yes, continue doing wrong, your majesty, we love you for it." Respect consists of making recommendations that make sense. If you wish to respect either Jackson or the currency, let alone both, separate the two, they don't mix well. If you wish to respect America, give it a currency suitable for a free country. It is only if you disrespect all three that you can continue encouraging such a symbolic contradiction. " My opponent's next point was that Andrew Jackson didn't cite any regional favoritism while distributing taxpayer money. Did you even RESEARCH how money was distributed back then!?!?!??! Distributing taxpayer money was the job of congress, not the executive branch" You are twisting my words to mean something completely different than they do. This is not unique among your arguments here, merely a particularly egregious example. My point was that he didn't cite any regional favoritism IN the bank's actions (Obviously Congress delegated some distribution of money to the bank, or it wouldn't be a BANK), as the reason for his objections. He cited it's favor of those who become rich by government favor, and it's lack of redeeming qualities. Region was not mentioned. "Andrew Jackson had to close down the bank because it was the only thing that he COULD do to make sure each state was equally represented." Equal representation of the states WAS NOT MENTIONED as a reason when he closed down the bank. Pay attention to the reasons he actually gave, not the ones you imagine for him. " My opponent's next point was as drastically un-cited as the last point," You have yet to make a single citation of a specific work, the closest thing to it was a citation of a random historian, without even providing the historian's probably nonexistent reasoning. "Jackson did not "Remove" the deposits in the bank at all." http://www.u-s-history.com... http://www.maths.tcd.ie... "ackson then used his second presidential election victory later that year as a mandate to order the withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank in 1833" Sure seems like he did. Last I checked, he even rewarded Taney with a Supreme Court seat for carrying out his orders. " And finally, my opponent's last point had to do with the economic stature of the $20 dollar bill, which, yet again, has nothing to do with why Andrew Jackson should be removed from it." I wouldn't want my face on a symbol soon to be tarnished. Would you?

Politics

Andrew-Jackson-should-be-removed-from-the-20-bill./1/

I will be arguing for Pro side, which means Android is better than iOS. You may use personal opinion and facts. Sources are not required, but recommended. You may use Wikipedia.

Fartbubble

I will be arguing for Pro side, which means Android is better than iOS. You may use personal opinion and facts. Sources are not required, but recommended. You may use Wikipedia.

Technology

Android-vs-iOS/1/

You think iOS is better than Android, but I BEG TO DIFFER! Android has greater customisability, and modification is encouraged in Android-land! Android is supported on a wide variety of devices. iOS uses a Borg-like ecosystem, where modding gets a big "no-no" from Apple. As the Android slogan is, "Be together, not the same." (Anyway, if you more of a closed ecosystem, Android has the device for you! It is called the Nexus! Sources: Android.com

Fartbubble

You think iOS is better than Android, but I BEG TO DIFFER! Android has greater customisability, and modification is encouraged in Android-land! Android is supported on a wide variety of devices. iOS uses a Borg-like ecosystem, where modding gets a big "no-no" from Apple. As the Android slogan is, "Be together, not the same." (Anyway, if you more of a closed ecosystem, Android has the device for you! It is called the Nexus! Sources: Android.com

Technology

Android-vs-iOS/1/

Note: Con has his arguments in the comments section. Note 2: Paragraphs marked with '>' are from Con. >Apple encourages everyone to be think differently. It is in their name. By thinking differently along with everyone else, you can finally realize that you are a unique individual in a sea of other equally unique individuals. It is a cognitive dissonance that tickles the imagination with its sublime irony and far reaching commentary on the nature of mankind's desire to differentiate itself while remaining part of a larger group. How does this improve the quality of their operating system? >This is simply untrue. When you buy your ipod, you are encourage to add custom engraving for a very very reasonable fee. You would be a FOOL to not take them up on this offer. Your ipod can come in any color imaginable! Blue! Green! Or a blue-green mixture! The possibilities are endless! This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. >Which is better. The nexus or the apple iTV. The answer lies before us. Which one did Steve Jobs prefer? Would Steve Jobs have preferred an inferior product? No. He would not. Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs.

Fartbubble

Note: Con has his arguments in the comments section. Note 2: Paragraphs marked with '>' are from Con. >Apple encourages everyone to be think differently. It is in their name. By thinking differently along with everyone else, you can finally realize that you are a unique individual in a sea of other equally unique individuals. It is a cognitive dissonance that tickles the imagination with its sublime irony and far reaching commentary on the nature of mankind's desire to differentiate itself while remaining part of a larger group. How does this improve the quality of their operating system? >This is simply untrue. When you buy your ipod, you are encourage to add custom engraving for a very very reasonable fee. You would be a FOOL to not take them up on this offer. Your ipod can come in any color imaginable! Blue! Green! Or a blue-green mixture! The possibilities are endless! This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. >Which is better. The nexus or the apple iTV. The answer lies before us. Which one did Steve Jobs prefer? Would Steve Jobs have preferred an inferior product? No. He would not. Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs.

Technology

Android-vs-iOS/1/

I believe that Apple provides the better platform because it is more tightly controlled by a single company. This allows them to ensure proper design from top to bottom, including the hardware, user experience, and application store. When you buy an apple device, you can rest assured that your new gadget will integrate wholesale into your existing Apple ecosystem of family friendly products. It is space age technology. The future is here, and it has arrived in the form of IOS.

Superbeef

I believe that Apple provides the better platform because it is more tightly controlled by a single company. This allows them to ensure proper design from top to bottom, including the hardware, user experience, and application store. When you buy an apple device, you can rest assured that your new gadget will integrate wholesale into your existing Apple ecosystem of family friendly products. It is space age technology. The future is here, and it has arrived in the form of IOS.

Technology

Android-vs-iOS/1/

> How does this improve the quality of their operating system? Well, obviously it doesn't since I'm about 85% joking around. Ultimately it boils down to what the user is in the mood for. If you like tinkering and don't mind doing some troubleshooting, then you might be happier with an Android device. If you want an ecosystem that's a bit more tightly controlled, but which will potentially give you less of a headache, then go with IOS. If you live near an Apple store, you can count on them to really be a good source of technical support (if you need that sort of thing), and on the upside you can buy more Apple products while you're in there. > This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. Why do you have a deep seated hatred for custom engravings? Were you abused by a custom engraving as a young child? Do not hold this bad experience against custom engravings everywhere, most of them are very nice! Also you should consider an apple green case to really show off your individuality! > Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs. Bananas and dogs are easy to compare because they are different things. DEBATE SCHOOL. CLASS DISMISSED!

Superbeef

> How does this improve the quality of their operating system? Well, obviously it doesn't since I'm about 85% joking around. Ultimately it boils down to what the user is in the mood for. If you like tinkering and don't mind doing some troubleshooting, then you might be happier with an Android device. If you want an ecosystem that's a bit more tightly controlled, but which will potentially give you less of a headache, then go with IOS. If you live near an Apple store, you can count on them to really be a good source of technical support (if you need that sort of thing), and on the upside you can buy more Apple products while you're in there. > This is irrelevant. It depends on the designer whether custom engravings and multiple colors should be on their device. Why do you have a deep seated hatred for custom engravings? Were you abused by a custom engraving as a young child? Do not hold this bad experience against custom engravings everywhere, most of them are very nice! Also you should consider an apple green case to really show off your individuality! > Also irrelevant. This is like comparing bananas to dogs. Bananas and dogs are easy to compare because they are different things. DEBATE SCHOOL. CLASS DISMISSED!

Technology

Android-vs-iOS/1/

Thesis: The book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is more important in modern times than the Holy Bible. Definition: Since there is no word English to express the notion of "Any animal that is not human", "animal" does not mean that and it's a fallacy, defining a word by itself ("Animal: any animal that is not human"), I invented a word: Outcast, Outcasts in plural. It will always have a capital letter. I ask my opponent to use the same terminology. Before anything, it is important to explain Peter Singer's thesis to my opponent and to the readers. "There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should tat human beings. (...) "Each to count for one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics f those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America could require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave em with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element--the taking into account the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be--must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman." Animal Liberation, chapter 1- ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL The book also mentions the different ways in which Outcasts are treated to be made into corpses for the market, how Outcast experimentation destroys sentient animals for things as futile as cosmetics. It is also important that this be quickly described here. Part 1 - Outcast experimentation. "The report tells us that 1,416,643 animals were experimented on in fiscal year 2000. This number is broken down by species: 69,516 dogs, 25,560 cats, 57,518 primates, 505,009 guinea pigs, 258,754 rabbits, 23,934 sheep, 66,651 pigs, 69126 "other" farm animals, and 166,429 "other" animals. According to the report 104,202 (7.4%) of these animals were used in painful or stressful experimentation without benefit of anesthesia. (The report is Internet accessible at <URL>... in the annual reports section.)" That is only for the USA. Source: <URL>... Draize test: test used in determining how irritant a product is into eyes. Every time you see a warning on a bleach bottle saying it's irritant, you can be sure it was poured on a rabbit's eyes before hitting the shelves. This test consists in placing a potencially irritant product in an Outcast's eyes. Rabbits are commonly used as they do not have tears to can their eyes. Some images with the censor ON. Turn it off and you won't need to watch Saw 7. <URL>... LD50 test: This test aims to find the concentration of a toxic product required to kill 50% of test Outcasts. Needless to say, those that survive are extremely sick and not always put out of their misery. These are the "standard procedures". Many other imaginative tests were made, including turning female monkeys into psychopaths, using a "rape rack" to get them pregnant, and observing how they treat their children ("One of their favourite trick was to crush the infant's skull with their teeth. But the really sickening behaviour pattern was that of smashing the infant's face to the floor, and then rubbing it back and forth.", Engineering and Science 33:8 (1970) (source from PS's (Peter Singer) book). Part 2 - Turning living animal into "meat". Meat is a depreciative term, and for this reason I will prefer the term "corpse" or "flesh" to it. 1- Chickens These are used for flesh and eggs. The USA alone killed 18Billion chickens in 2008. <URL>... The most important is that chickens live in what we commonly call "inhumane" conditions. They live in their own faeces, get intoxicated from it's ammonia and live in extremely small spaces. This is for the sake of profit. For green paper, in sum. 2- Veal This is possibly the most cruel form of Outcast exploitation. Calves are taken from their mothers when they are infants, fed on artificial milk and kept in boxes small enough for them to be unable to move or even turn around. They are also kept in a constant iron deficit to keep their flesh white. For this reason their cages are made out of wood, with no iron screws or other components. Calves would otherwise lick those. Other forms of flesh production are similar, simply imagine how you would make your exploitation of slave Outcasts the most productive, that's how the factories are, neglecting all the needs from Animal beings. It is now time to compare this book to the Bible. Presenting the Bible will be my opponent's burden, and so will explaining the importance of the book to today's society. Please do not use religious reasons for this, such as "It's the word of god.", it's a book with the same status as any fiction book. The importance of Animal Liberation should be quite clear by now: people ought to know that what they are eating is not meat, it's a corpse, a sentient animal that was made a slave and suffered. The point of this debate is not to debate over whether or not PS's thesis is correct, although it has been proved that Outcasts are able of the same emotions as humans, keep in mind that evolution didn't "go towards humans", and that every other species humans evolved from is not inferior in ability to us, in fact, we have common ancestors we animals capable of killing any human without needing a tool. The only thing that makes us different in brain capability is our cortex, IT DOES NOT MAKE OUR EMOTIONS MORE STRONG. That's the limbic system that many Outcasts have more developed, or at least just as developed as humans. And as a final note, I am not English, and the best I get from English culture is the internet.

Pirate

Thesis: The book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is more important in modern times than the Holy Bible. Definition: Since there is no word English to express the notion of "Any animal that is not human", "animal" does not mean that and it's a fallacy, defining a word by itself ("Animal: any animal that is not human"), I invented a word: Outcast, Outcasts in plural. It will always have a capital letter. I ask my opponent to use the same terminology. Before anything, it is important to explain Peter Singer's thesis to my opponent and to the readers. "There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should tat human beings. (...) "Each to count for one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics f those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America could require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave em with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element--the taking into account the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be--must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman." Animal Liberation, chapter 1- ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL The book also mentions the different ways in which Outcasts are treated to be made into corpses for the market, how Outcast experimentation destroys sentient animals for things as futile as cosmetics. It is also important that this be quickly described here. Part 1 - Outcast experimentation. "The report tells us that 1,416,643 animals were experimented on in fiscal year 2000. This number is broken down by species: 69,516 dogs, 25,560 cats, 57,518 primates, 505,009 guinea pigs, 258,754 rabbits, 23,934 sheep, 66,651 pigs, 69126 "other" farm animals, and 166,429 "other" animals. According to the report 104,202 (7.4%) of these animals were used in painful or stressful experimentation without benefit of anesthesia. (The report is Internet accessible at http://www.aphis.usda.gov... in the annual reports section.)" That is only for the USA. Source: http://www.all-creatures.org... Draize test: test used in determining how irritant a product is into eyes. Every time you see a warning on a bleach bottle saying it's irritant, you can be sure it was poured on a rabbit's eyes before hitting the shelves. This test consists in placing a potencially irritant product in an Outcast's eyes. Rabbits are commonly used as they do not have tears to can their eyes. Some images with the censor ON. Turn it off and you won't need to watch Saw 7. http://www.google.pt... LD50 test: This test aims to find the concentration of a toxic product required to kill 50% of test Outcasts. Needless to say, those that survive are extremely sick and not always put out of their misery. These are the "standard procedures". Many other imaginative tests were made, including turning female monkeys into psychopaths, using a "rape rack" to get them pregnant, and observing how they treat their children ("One of their favourite trick was to crush the infant's skull with their teeth. But the really sickening behaviour pattern was that of smashing the infant's face to the floor, and then rubbing it back and forth.", Engineering and Science 33:8 (1970) (source from PS's (Peter Singer) book). Part 2 - Turning living animal into "meat". Meat is a depreciative term, and for this reason I will prefer the term "corpse" or "flesh" to it. 1- Chickens These are used for flesh and eggs. The USA alone killed 18Billion chickens in 2008. http://www.all-creatures.org... The most important is that chickens live in what we commonly call "inhumane" conditions. They live in their own faeces, get intoxicated from it's ammonia and live in extremely small spaces. This is for the sake of profit. For green paper, in sum. 2- Veal This is possibly the most cruel form of Outcast exploitation. Calves are taken from their mothers when they are infants, fed on artificial milk and kept in boxes small enough for them to be unable to move or even turn around. They are also kept in a constant iron deficit to keep their flesh white. For this reason their cages are made out of wood, with no iron screws or other components. Calves would otherwise lick those. Other forms of flesh production are similar, simply imagine how you would make your exploitation of slave Outcasts the most productive, that's how the factories are, neglecting all the needs from Animal beings. It is now time to compare this book to the Bible. Presenting the Bible will be my opponent's burden, and so will explaining the importance of the book to today's society. Please do not use religious reasons for this, such as "It's the word of god.", it's a book with the same status as any fiction book. The importance of Animal Liberation should be quite clear by now: people ought to know that what they are eating is not meat, it's a corpse, a sentient animal that was made a slave and suffered. The point of this debate is not to debate over whether or not PS's thesis is correct, although it has been proved that Outcasts are able of the same emotions as humans, keep in mind that evolution didn't "go towards humans", and that every other species humans evolved from is not inferior in ability to us, in fact, we have common ancestors we animals capable of killing any human without needing a tool. The only thing that makes us different in brain capability is our cortex, IT DOES NOT MAKE OUR EMOTIONS MORE STRONG. That's the limbic system that many Outcasts have more developed, or at least just as developed as humans. And as a final note, I am not English, and the best I get from English culture is the internet.

Society

Animal-Liberation-is-more-important-than-the-Bible./1/

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate. In this debate, I will challenge Pro's resolution "Animal Testing Should be Banned". Pro has presented three reasons why we should ban animal testing, I will refute them one by one. 1/ Animal testing is unreliable Pro claimed that "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Those that pass the test are not automatically safe but they are less likely to be dangerous than the ones that were discarded thanks to the test. Let's imagine something like this: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. So 92% of the drugs which pass the first test fail the second test. Does it mean the first test is useless? Obviously not. The fact is animal testing has contributed greatly to the medical progress. It helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, birth defects, ... [1] 2/ Animal testing is barbaric This argument is very emotion-based. The fact is we should and we must put the our own benefit over other species. Animals are killed in order to make drugs for human. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. What is wrong with that? Human right is above animal right. Pro talks about the animals' pain. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? If animal testing helps saving human lives then there is no reason to stop it. 3/ There are alternatives The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". The scanning technology only helps us to find the cure, but after we make the cure we still need to test it. So it is not an alternative. Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals? [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>...

4saken

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate. In this debate, I will challenge Pro's resolution "Animal Testing Should be Banned". Pro has presented three reasons why we should ban animal testing, I will refute them one by one. 1/ Animal testing is unreliable Pro claimed that "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Those that pass the test are not automatically safe but they are less likely to be dangerous than the ones that were discarded thanks to the test. Let's imagine something like this: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. So 92% of the drugs which pass the first test fail the second test. Does it mean the first test is useless? Obviously not. The fact is animal testing has contributed greatly to the medical progress. It helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson"s disease, birth defects, ... [1] 2/ Animal testing is barbaric This argument is very emotion-based. The fact is we should and we must put the our own benefit over other species. Animals are killed in order to make drugs for human. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. What is wrong with that? Human right is above animal right. Pro talks about the animals' pain. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? If animal testing helps saving human lives then there is no reason to stop it. 3/ There are alternatives The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". The scanning technology only helps us to find the cure, but after we make the cure we still need to test it. So it is not an alternative. Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals? [1] http://www.amprogress.org... [2] http://www.peta.org...

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

1/ Animal testing is unreliable Pro insisted that "If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass". He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless. My argument stands: This doesn't prove that animal testing is unnecessary and should be abolished. Pro said that the alternatives are far more reliable, I said: Prove it. Show me that less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials. Pro said that "Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable". It is incorrect. Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%. [2] Thanks to the genomic revolution, we have realized that there are much more similarities between humans and animals than there are differences. Genomic knowledge has made it so that animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react. [3] For example mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases. [3] Pro said that "There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans". While it is true, we can't use human experiment (that's why we need animal testing before human clinical trials). If Pro consider "human cell" of "human skin" as "human" then it's just ridiculous. Such models can not tell us what the likely effect of a drug will be on blood pressure - because neither of these things has a circulatory system, blood, heart, ... or they could predict how a drug might be metabolised without introducing it to an organism with a liver. We must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage . [4] Pro said that "52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies". It's 30 years ago. It doesn't prove that animal testing is unreliable now. 2/ Animal Testing is Cruel There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain. It's hypocrisy to say one case is OK while the other is not. Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human. Why should we give other species more rights than us? Therefore it's totally OK for us to "murder" animals for our own benefit (by the way I also want to remind Pro that "killing animals" doesn't count as "murder" [5]). On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd. Pro said that animal testing is not only for making drugs and saving human lives, but also for cosmetics and toiletries. This is irrelevant. While animal testing is not always about saving lives, it does save lives in many cases. Just because it doesn't save lives in other cases, doesn't mean we should ban it as a whole. Pro could have just suggested the ban of animal testing for cosmetics and toiletries, however, his resolution is to abolish all kinds of animal testing. Proving that animal testing for drugs shouldn't be banned is enough for me to win this debate. 3/ There are Alternatives Pro mentioned cell/tissue tests and human skin model tests. I said above that such models can not replace the whole body and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage". Pro presented various examples of the alternatives. However, he only showed that some specific non animal tests can replace some specific animal tests. I n order to abolish animal testing, he must show that all kinds of animal testing (or at least most of them) can be replaced. In Round 1, I have said that animal testing "helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>...

4saken

1/ Animal testing is unreliable Pro insisted that "If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass". He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless. My argument stands: This doesn't prove that animal testing is unnecessary and should be abolished. Pro said that the alternatives are far more reliable, I said: Prove it. Show me that less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials. Pro said that "Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable". It is incorrect. Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%. [2] Thanks to the genomic revolution, we have realized that there are much more similarities between humans and animals than there are differences. Genomic knowledge has made it so that animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react. [3] For example mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases. [3] Pro said that "There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans". While it is true, we can't use human experiment (that's why we need animal testing before human clinical trials). If Pro consider "human cell" of "human skin" as "human" then it's just ridiculous. Such models can not tell us what the likely effect of a drug will be on blood pressure - because neither of these things has a circulatory system, blood, heart, ... or they could predict how a drug might be metabolised without introducing it to an organism with a liver. We must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage . [4] Pro said that "52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies". It's 30 years ago. It doesn't prove that animal testing is unreliable now. 2/ Animal Testing is Cruel There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain. It's hypocrisy to say one case is OK while the other is not. Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human. Why should we give other species more rights than us? Therefore it's totally OK for us to "murder" animals for our own benefit (by the way I also want to remind Pro that "killing animals" doesn't count as "murder" [5]). On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd. Pro said that animal testing is not only for making drugs and saving human lives, but also for cosmetics and toiletries. This is irrelevant. While animal testing is not always about saving lives, it does save lives in many cases. Just because it doesn't save lives in other cases, doesn't mean we should ban it as a whole. Pro could have just suggested the ban of animal testing for cosmetics and toiletries, however, his resolution is to abolish all kinds of animal testing. Proving that animal testing for drugs shouldn't be banned is enough for me to win this debate. 3/ There are Alternatives Pro mentioned cell/tissue tests and human skin model tests. I said above that such models can not replace the whole body and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage". Pro presented various examples of the alternatives. However, he only showed that some specific non animal tests can replace some specific animal tests. I n order to abolish animal testing, he must show that all kinds of animal testing (or at least most of them) can be replaced. In Round 1, I have said that animal testing "helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases. [1] http://www.abc.net.au... [2] http://www.sanger.ac.uk... [3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk... [4] http://www.pro-test.org.uk... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

1/ Animal testing is unreliable My point is the statistic Pro presented does not back up his argument of unreliability. I will repeat my counter example in Round 1 here: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. Just because 92% of the drugs that pass the first test fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is unreliable. Pro said 8% is small. Small compared to what? I asked him to show that " less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials ". Pro had no answer. Of course there are differences between human and animals. But I've already said in Round 2, "animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react" and "mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases". Pro didn't have any rebuttal to my arguments. 2/ Animal Testing is Cruel *) So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement. Why is it horrible and unfair? This is no argument, simply Pro's opinion. *) I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally. Putting animal lives above human lives is absurd. It is completely unreasonable to sacrifice the lives of your own species to save the lives of other species. *) You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals. I didn't ignore anything. Killing animals for drugs and killing animals for food is the same. If it saves human lives then yes, we can kill 19.5m more animals. 3/ There are Alternatives Pro made a grave mistakes. He needs to show that the alternatives are better than animal testing . Just making a long list of other methods is meaningless. CELL CULTURE I've already said in Round 2 that "human cell" is not "human body" and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage". Pro said that " the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing ". It is false. NCI uses animal testing a lot: " If the drug shows promise, extensive testing in animals will determine whether it is effective and safe enough for testing in humans " ( <URL>... ). COMPUTERS How can a model computer can replace a living organism? MICROORGANISMS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. MOLECULAR METHODS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. CYSTIC FIBROSIS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. BRAIN RESEARCH None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. ASTHMA None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. SKIN CANCER None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. BRAIN TUMOUR None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS Computer model again. See above. LIVER None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. *) While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing. There is no where in Pro's source states that " taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing ". Conclusion Pro is unable to prove that animal testing is unreliable and the other methods are better. While maybe the animals are suffering due to the tests, it can't be helped if we want to save human lives. So the BOP is not met, Pro has failed to show that "Animal Testing Should be Banned". As the last word I would like to thank Pro for the great debate.

4saken

1/ Animal testing is unreliable My point is the statistic Pro presented does not back up his argument of unreliability. I will repeat my counter example in Round 1 here: 1000 drugs need to go through two tests. 900 fail the first test and only 100 are allowed to take the second test, then 92 fail and only 8 pass. Just because 92% of the drugs that pass the first test fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is unreliable. Pro said 8% is small. Small compared to what? I asked him to show that " less than 92% of the products passing those alternatives fail in human clinical trials ". Pro had no answer. Of course there are differences between human and animals. But I've already said in Round 2, "animal research can be much more specifically targeted and accurate when representing a human, thus correctly predicting a how a human will react" and "mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases". Pro didn't have any rebuttal to my arguments. 2/ Animal Testing is Cruel *) So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement. Why is it horrible and unfair? This is no argument, simply Pro's opinion. *) I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally. Putting animal lives above human lives is absurd. It is completely unreasonable to sacrifice the lives of your own species to save the lives of other species. *) You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals. I didn't ignore anything. Killing animals for drugs and killing animals for food is the same. If it saves human lives then yes, we can kill 19.5m more animals. 3/ There are Alternatives Pro made a grave mistakes. He needs to show that the alternatives are better than animal testing . Just making a long list of other methods is meaningless. CELL CULTURE I've already said in Round 2 that "human cell" is not "human body" and "we must trial drugs on whole living organisms at some stage". Pro said that " the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing ". It is false. NCI uses animal testing a lot: " If the drug shows promise, extensive testing in animals will determine whether it is effective and safe enough for testing in humans " ( http://www.cancer.gov... ). COMPUTERS How can a model computer can replace a living organism? MICROORGANISMS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. MOLECULAR METHODS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. CYSTIC FIBROSIS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. BRAIN RESEARCH None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. ASTHMA None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. SKIN CANCER None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. BRAIN TUMOUR None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS Computer model again. See above. LIVER None of the sentences here states that this method is better than animal testing. *) While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing. There is no where in Pro's source states that " taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing ". Conclusion Pro is unable to prove that animal testing is unreliable and the other methods are better. While maybe the animals are suffering due to the tests, it can't be helped if we want to save human lives. So the BOP is not met, Pro has failed to show that "Animal Testing Should be Banned". As the last word I would like to thank Pro for the great debate.

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

Welcome to this debate: "animal testing should be banned". I as pro define animal testing as experimenting using the lives of animals or harming animals in any way. I define banned as completely abolishing taking lives or harming animals in tests or experiments. Animal testing is certainly a disgrace, and should be banned. It firstly is fairly unreliable. Animals don't have the same body systems as us, and what might be good for them may not have the same great effect on us. It has been proven that 92 percent of experimental drugs (that's 9 in 10!) that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work. This means that the animals died for a cause that didn't even work out. Animal testing can even delay research because of its unreliability. Cosmetics, drugs, and other animal tested products can also cause health problems due to unreliability. Secondly, it is a barbaric way of researching. It is just trial and error on animals. Animals' lives are treated like dirt, and while they can't talk, they still have rights. Approximately 19.5% are killed every year in research. This is absurd! Innocent animals are dying, and 9 in 10 animals die for a product that doesn't even work. Also, cures for many diseases and medical conditions like stroke and asthma, have made little progress over the past century, yet have used excessive animal testing in experiments. Testing is often painful, and includes many sickening ways of completing experiments, like pouring drain killer into the eyes of animals, or rubbing chemicals on shaved skin. Painful? You bet. Most of these experiments aren't used with any sort of painkiller. A lot of animals' lives are thrown away. This must stop. Finally, there are kinder alternatives to experiment, and animal testing is hardly necessary. It isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments. Doctors are now starting to use other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing. We can now discover the root causes of diseases, so more action can be taken. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (for example, MRI, FMRI, PET, and CT) have prevented mental disorders in the brains of people. Other scans and screening methods are also used to prevent big diseases. Even skin model testing has been proven to work. These alternatives to animal testing have are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. Animal testing just isn't right and should definitely be banned because it: Is unreliable Is cruel Isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments We must ban animal testing right away. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...

emilyskates72

Welcome to this debate: "animal testing should be banned". I as pro define animal testing as experimenting using the lives of animals or harming animals in any way. I define banned as completely abolishing taking lives or harming animals in tests or experiments. Animal testing is certainly a disgrace, and should be banned. It firstly is fairly unreliable. Animals don't have the same body systems as us, and what might be good for them may not have the same great effect on us. It has been proven that 92 percent of experimental drugs (that's 9 in 10!) that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work. This means that the animals died for a cause that didn't even work out. Animal testing can even delay research because of its unreliability. Cosmetics, drugs, and other animal tested products can also cause health problems due to unreliability. Secondly, it is a barbaric way of researching. It is just trial and error on animals. Animals' lives are treated like dirt, and while they can't talk, they still have rights. Approximately 19.5% are killed every year in research. This is absurd! Innocent animals are dying, and 9 in 10 animals die for a product that doesn't even work. Also, cures for many diseases and medical conditions like stroke and asthma, have made little progress over the past century, yet have used excessive animal testing in experiments. Testing is often painful, and includes many sickening ways of completing experiments, like pouring drain killer into the eyes of animals, or rubbing chemicals on shaved skin. Painful? You bet. Most of these experiments aren't used with any sort of painkiller. A lot of animals' lives are thrown away. This must stop. Finally, there are kinder alternatives to experiment, and animal testing is hardly necessary. It isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments. Doctors are now starting to use other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing. We can now discover the root causes of diseases, so more action can be taken. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (for example, MRI, FMRI, PET, and CT) have prevented mental disorders in the brains of people. Other scans and screening methods are also used to prevent big diseases. Even skin model testing has been proven to work. These alternatives to animal testing have are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. Animal testing just isn't right and should definitely be banned because it: Is unreliable Is cruel Isn't necessary due to technological advances and more effective treatments We must ban animal testing right away. http://www.statisticbrain.com... http://www.dosomething.org... http://www.aavs.org... http://www.hsi.org... http://www.peta.org...

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

Thank you con for an interesting argument. However, some of your points are unworthy. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". Ok then, you asked for it. Here it is directly from the source: "Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests." (1) Now, do you want me to "elaborate" some more, or can you see the point? Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals? The skin test is just one specific example I used. There are many more alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like examining blood donations (saves hundreds of thousands of rabbits and humans yearly), the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (a skin sensitization test), The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test (A complete replacement for Phototoxicity animal tests) (3), The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test (uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste), the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (a differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells) (4), the use of leftover human skin from surgery is be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to burn the skin (5), and more alternatives to testing. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. So that's your point, is it? That torturing animals is ok, because people eat meat already? That's a very unthoughtful argument. What con is pretty much saying here, is that when animals die for meat and food, it's suddenly alright for 19.5 MILLION more animals to die unnaturally and in pain. We kill enough animals for the food industry, without more dying through experiments. However, The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste. So the meat truly isn't wasted. "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. What this statistic is really saying, is that what worked in animal trials actually failed later on. It's sort of like pulling a lever on a slot machine. Every now and again, the winning combination will appear. What the statistic is also saying, is that it's unreliable. If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass. Alternatives to animal testing are far more reliable, and aren't nearly as cruel. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Drugs? Animal testing is not all jolly and saving human lives with medicine. Animal testing is used countlessly for cosmetics and toiletries. It's not worth it, for there to be a blind monkey for a new line of mascara. While you may be thinking animal testing is all about saving lives, it isn't. Millions of animals die each year in pain because of the make-up industry. Human right is above animal right. Who says? What makes us so important that innocent animals must be tortured, then murdered, so people can enjoy the benenfits? What's ok about humans killing bunnies, but so horrible about rabbits killing babies? I'll leave that question with you, con. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? While diseases are horrible, they're at least a natural way of dying- no MURDER involved. The animals taken in by testing have been killed way before their time has come. Con is saying in this sentence, that the pain of people "tormented" by diseases, a natural way of dying, needs to be stopped by torturing hundreds of innocent animals, an unnatural and cruel way of dying. Animal testing is also not all about saving lives. The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. What sort of research went into that statement? When finding what chemicals irritate skin, comparing alternative tests to animal tests, the animal tests had a 40% error rate, whereas alternative testing correctly showed all the chemicals. A replacement for the LD50 Test had an accuracy rate of 84%, while the animal test had an accuracy rate of 52% (7). Other tests have been proven to be more reliable. Now, I'll back up the points I made in R1: 1. Animal Testing is Unreliable I'll start this argument off with a quote I found: "There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry." -MacLennan & Amos. Clinical Science Research (7). This quote sums up my point in a nut shell. Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable. In fact, 52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies (2). This just shows the unreliability. 2. Animal Testing is Cruel Let me start by saying that this is not exactly opinionated like con said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that exposing a shaved rabbit to 24 hours of burning is cruel. Animal testing is cruelty to animals. The animals used are even common pets like hamsters, rabbits, cats and dogs! Testing on animals mainly isn't about saving lives either; millions of animals yearly are put to death so humans can show off their new make-up. It's vile! 3. There are Alternatives There are many alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like: Examining blood donations the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test the Chicken Eye Test (uses meat already killed from the meat industry) the Embryonic Stem Cell Test the use of leftover human skin from surgery LD50 alternative test And more These alternatives are more cost efficient, more reliable, and reduces toxic waste. These alternatives are extremely important, and helps reduce animal testing drastically. Now it's clear that animal testing must be banned. It's unreliable, cruel, and unnecessary. Over to you, con. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... 7. <URL>...

emilyskates72

Thank you con for an interesting argument. However, some of your points are unworthy. I would like Pro to elaborate about "other methods which are far more effective and reliable than animal testing". Ok then, you asked for it. Here it is directly from the source: "Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests." (1) Now, do you want me to "elaborate" some more, or can you see the point? Regarding the skin model, the original quote from Pro's source is "Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm" test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits." [2] It is the replacement for specific studies, how can it replace testing drugs in animals? The skin test is just one specific example I used. There are many more alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like examining blood donations (saves hundreds of thousands of rabbits and humans yearly), the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (a skin sensitization test), The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test (A complete replacement for Phototoxicity animal tests) (3), The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test (uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste), the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (a differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells) (4), the use of leftover human skin from surgery is be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to burn the skin (5), and more alternatives to testing. So what? Animals are also killed to be consumed by human. So that's your point, is it? That torturing animals is ok, because people eat meat already? That's a very unthoughtful argument. What con is pretty much saying here, is that when animals die for meat and food, it's suddenly alright for 19.5 MILLION more animals to die unnaturally and in pain. We kill enough animals for the food industry, without more dying through experiments. However, The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test uses the eyes of animals already killed for meat, so no new animals are killed, and no part of the already-slaughtered animals are put to waste. So the meat truly isn't wasted. "92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don't work". This is very misleading and it doesn't prove anything. What this statistic is really saying, is that what worked in animal trials actually failed later on. It's sort of like pulling a lever on a slot machine. Every now and again, the winning combination will appear. What the statistic is also saying, is that it's unreliable. If if there were 100 products that WORKED in testing, then 92 will fail later on, and a mere 8 will pass. Alternatives to animal testing are far more reliable, and aren't nearly as cruel. We use animal testing to find the drugs potentially dangerous to human. Drugs? Animal testing is not all jolly and saving human lives with medicine. Animal testing is used countlessly for cosmetics and toiletries. It's not worth it, for there to be a blind monkey for a new line of mascara. While you may be thinking animal testing is all about saving lives, it isn't. Millions of animals die each year in pain because of the make-up industry. Human right is above animal right. Who says? What makes us so important that innocent animals must be tortured, then murdered, so people can enjoy the benenfits? What's ok about humans killing bunnies, but so horrible about rabbits killing babies? I'll leave that question with you, con. But how about the pain of the people tormented by diseases? While diseases are horrible, they're at least a natural way of dying- no MURDER involved. The animals taken in by testing have been killed way before their time has come. Con is saying in this sentence, that the pain of people "tormented" by diseases, a natural way of dying, needs to be stopped by torturing hundreds of innocent animals, an unnatural and cruel way of dying. Animal testing is also not all about saving lives. The alternatives to animal testing are even more unreliable. What sort of research went into that statement? When finding what chemicals irritate skin, comparing alternative tests to animal tests, the animal tests had a 40% error rate, whereas alternative testing correctly showed all the chemicals. A replacement for the LD50 Test had an accuracy rate of 84%, while the animal test had an accuracy rate of 52% (7). Other tests have been proven to be more reliable. Now, I'll back up the points I made in R1: 1. Animal Testing is Unreliable I'll start this argument off with a quote I found: “There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” -MacLennan & Amos. Clinical Science Research (7). This quote sums up my point in a nut shell. Animals have different bodies to ours, and are unreliable. In fact, 52% of the new drugs marketed in the US between 1976 and 1985 caused adverse reactions that were not predicted by animal studies (2). This just shows the unreliability. 2. Animal Testing is Cruel Let me start by saying that this is not exactly opinionated like con said. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that exposing a shaved rabbit to 24 hours of burning is cruel. Animal testing is cruelty to animals. The animals used are even common pets like hamsters, rabbits, cats and dogs! Testing on animals mainly isn't about saving lives either; millions of animals yearly are put to death so humans can show off their new make-up. It's vile! 3. There are Alternatives There are many alternatives which are safer than animal testing, like: Examining blood donations the Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay The 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test the Chicken Eye Test (uses meat already killed from the meat industry) the Embryonic Stem Cell Test the use of leftover human skin from surgery LD50 alternative test And more These alternatives are more cost efficient, more reliable, and reduces toxic waste. These alternatives are extremely important, and helps reduce animal testing drastically. Now it's clear that animal testing must be banned. It's unreliable, cruel, and unnecessary. Over to you, con. Sources: 1. http://www.humanesociety.org... 2. http://www.dawnwatch.com... 3. http://www.peta.org... 4. http://www.esnats.eu... 5. http://www.peta.org... 6. http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org... 7. http://www.neavs.org...

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless. This is just a statistic to back up my argument of unreliability. Out of 100, only 8 pass. This is small. There are more useful alternatives. Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%. When it comes to DNA, every little percent counts. Mice are furry, small, etc. There are many differences between us and mice, yet they still share 99% of our genes. It is the same with pigs. The website even says that mice genomes are shorter than that of humans, bringing more differences. Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human. So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement. On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd. I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally. helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases. Sure. CELL CULTURE Using leftover cells from surgery, scientists can now research them and grow them. In 1996 a team based at Uppsala, Sweden, compared animal test data, human experience and the results of cell culture tests for a range of chemicals. Their aim was to discover whether animals or cell culture were better predictors of what happens in humans. The cell culture results were found to be significantly more accurate. Cell culture can help birth defects and the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing. COMPUTERS Computers can detect the safety of drugs more accurately than animals. They can create 3D models to help scientists with testing and research. MICROORGANISMS Microorganisms can be used as indicators of drugs being harmful. The Trust's research into diabetes successfully used a microscopic organism called Hydra, as an alternative to diabetic animals. It is also helping the fatal sleeping sickness. MOLECULAR METHODS Scientists have provided analytical equipment to researchers selecting new anti-cancer and anti-malaria drugs, based on their molecular interaction with DNA, as an alternative to selecting drugs by animal tests. They are also helping the fibrosing lung disease. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES By looking at some of their current research projects we can see how alternatives can be developed and practically applied in real life research scenarios to the benefit of humans and animals. CYSTIC FIBROSIS This study will monitor changes in bacterial populations in CF patient sputum to improve our understanding of what happens during exacerbations and periods of stability. It will also helo with medication. BRAIN RESEARCH This project will use dual-site TMS to shed light on the interaction of two areas of the human brain known to be involved in visual attention. It can help with brain disorders and tumors. ASTHMA The research project will use cells collected from asthmatic patients to create a three-dimensional cell culture model of mucus production. It will find ways of turning off over-production. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS The Dr Hadwen Trust is funding a one-year pilot study to investigate the potential of applying a new molecular technique to MS research to replace animal studies. SKIN CANCER Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry has created 3D models of skin cancer cells to understand and research skin cancer. AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA The University College London is devising the first-ever test-tube method for culturing the human pathogen, to replace experiments on infected rodents with purposely damaged immune systems. BRAIN TUMOUR Portsmouth University are creating a three-dimensional culture model of human brain tumour invasion. Human brain cells are ethically obtained from patients undergoing surgery. Normal brain cells are grown in the lab alongside balls of tumour cells to produce a model of brain tumour invasion. COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS There is the construction of computer models of the human heart, uterus and spinal cord at Leeds University. LIVER This project is using the very latest tissue engineering techniques to culture human liver cells on 3D micro-scaffolds, to create realistic cell culture models for the study of liver diseases, such as hepatitis, and for drug research and testing. (1) There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain. You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals. we can't use human experiment While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing. (1) Thank you con for a great debate. I rest my case. Sources: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... ... 3. <URL>... ... 4. <URL>... ... 5. <URL>... ... 6. <URL>... ... 7. <URL>... ...

emilyskates72

He ignored my point that just because the products pass the first test and fail the second test, doesn't mean the first test is useless. This is just a statistic to back up my argument of unreliability. Out of 100, only 8 pass. This is small. There are more useful alternatives. Many animals have similar DNA to human, such as pigs share 98% of human genes [1] or mice share 99%. When it comes to DNA, every little percent counts. Mice are furry, small, etc. There are many differences between us and mice, yet they still share 99% of our genes. It is the same with pigs. The website even says that mice genomes are shorter than that of humans, bringing more differences. Pro questioned my point that "Human right is above animal right". Isn't that obvious? Right is a concept created by human. So animals can be killed whenever because there are no rights to protect them? That's a horrible and unfair statement. On the other hand, what Pro suggested is we should save animals' lives and leave sick people to die in pain because it's natural. This kind of reasoning is absurd. I don't see how it's absurd. If the human is dying of a disease, killing an animal who has a whole life ahead of it is cruel. The human is dying of natural causes, while the animal is dying unnaturally. helps us in our fight against cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, birth defects, ...". I would like Pro to present the alternatives for the experiments for such diseases. Sure. CELL CULTURE Using leftover cells from surgery, scientists can now research them and grow them. In 1996 a team based at Uppsala, Sweden, compared animal test data, human experience and the results of cell culture tests for a range of chemicals. Their aim was to discover whether animals or cell culture were better predictors of what happens in humans. The cell culture results were found to be significantly more accurate. Cell culture can help birth defects and the National Cancer Institute favours cell culture over animal testing. COMPUTERS Computers can detect the safety of drugs more accurately than animals. They can create 3D models to help scientists with testing and research. MICROORGANISMS Microorganisms can be used as indicators of drugs being harmful. The Trust's research into diabetes successfully used a microscopic organism called Hydra, as an alternative to diabetic animals. It is also helping the fatal sleeping sickness. MOLECULAR METHODS Scientists have provided analytical equipment to researchers selecting new anti-cancer and anti-malaria drugs, based on their molecular interaction with DNA, as an alternative to selecting drugs by animal tests. They are also helping the fibrosing lung disease. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES By looking at some of their current research projects we can see how alternatives can be developed and practically applied in real life research scenarios to the benefit of humans and animals. CYSTIC FIBROSIS This study will monitor changes in bacterial populations in CF patient sputum to improve our understanding of what happens during exacerbations and periods of stability. It will also helo with medication. BRAIN RESEARCH This project will use dual-site TMS to shed light on the interaction of two areas of the human brain known to be involved in visual attention. It can help with brain disorders and tumors. ASTHMA The research project will use cells collected from asthmatic patients to create a three-dimensional cell culture model of mucus production. It will find ways of turning off over-production. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS The Dr Hadwen Trust is funding a one-year pilot study to investigate the potential of applying a new molecular technique to MS research to replace animal studies. SKIN CANCER Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry has created 3D models of skin cancer cells to understand and research skin cancer. AIDS-RELATED PNEUMONIA The University College London is devising the first-ever test-tube method for culturing the human pathogen, to replace experiments on infected rodents with purposely damaged immune systems. BRAIN TUMOUR Portsmouth University are creating a three-dimensional culture model of human brain tumour invasion. Human brain cells are ethically obtained from patients undergoing surgery. Normal brain cells are grown in the lab alongside balls of tumour cells to produce a model of brain tumour invasion. COMPUTER MODELLING OF VIRTUAL ORGANS There is the construction of computer models of the human heart, uterus and spinal cord at Leeds University. LIVER This project is using the very latest tissue engineering techniques to culture human liver cells on 3D micro-scaffolds, to create realistic cell culture models for the study of liver diseases, such as hepatitis, and for drug research and testing. (1) There is no difference between killing animals for food and killing animals for drugs. In both cases animals die unnaturally and in pain. You ignored the point I made previously. Just because animals die for meat, this does not mean we can just kill 19.5m more animals. we can't use human experiment While it is unethical to kill a human, taking blood samples and organ donations is far more reliable than animal testing. (1) Thank you con for a great debate. I rest my case. Sources: 1. http://www.shac.net... 2. http://www.dawnwatch.com... ... 3. http://www.peta.org... ... 4. http://www.esnats.eu... ... 5. http://www.peta.org... ... 6. http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org... ... 7. http://www.neavs.org... ...

Science

Animal-Testing-Should-be-Banned/3/

Ok, bear with me here. I'm new so, my arguments might be a little unjustified/unreasonable/emotion-filled. Let's start. Animal testing? Always heard of as bad. But here are some reasons that people should allow it. 1. People fear being tested on themselves. Everyone fights against animal testing. However, many people will refuse to be tested on themselves. When it comes down to reality, humans will be too selfish/fearful to stand up for their causes. 2. Classic example. Your close relative is dying. The disease is new and there is no known cure. Of course you would want the scientists to do all that they could to save your relative. Who wouldn't? Animal testing has cured a few diseases that might've ravaged our country or maybe even the world, today. Polio (might not be accepted as it took multiple experiments on monkeys and one final experiment on a human), cholera, syphilis and etc. Scientists have also found, through animal testing, some blockades to conditions like Diabetes and Asthma. 3. History would've been completely off. Going for a theory here, if animal testing were eliminated from our country, it would be obvious that many diseases would still be running rampant throughout the world. You see on the news cases of people offering up their own bodies to science. However, these cases are extremely rare and if animal testing were completely banned, than our country would be lacking in anti-biotics and medical procedures that might help save a person's life. 4. Animal testing on the animals is fairly small compared to the whole species. Let's face it. Animal testing is aimed at an average of about 115 million per year. It may seem like a lot, but there are two facts that undermine it. A. Most likely that scientists will take about a hundred per species from different countries or the U.S. It will not kill the whole species or even put them at the risk of extinction. The animals will most likely breed back the numbers within a few months . B. 115 million a year. Compare that to the number of animals in the U.S. All I have for now! And by the way, I thank my opponent for a good debate. Whoever he/she is.

ClumsyKlutz

Ok, bear with me here. I'm new so, my arguments might be a little unjustified/unreasonable/emotion-filled. Let's start. Animal testing? Always heard of as bad. But here are some reasons that people should allow it. 1. People fear being tested on themselves. Everyone fights against animal testing. However, many people will refuse to be tested on themselves. When it comes down to reality, humans will be too selfish/fearful to stand up for their causes. 2. Classic example. Your close relative is dying. The disease is new and there is no known cure. Of course you would want the scientists to do all that they could to save your relative. Who wouldn't? Animal testing has cured a few diseases that might've ravaged our country or maybe even the world, today. Polio (might not be accepted as it took multiple experiments on monkeys and one final experiment on a human), cholera, syphilis and etc. Scientists have also found, through animal testing, some blockades to conditions like Diabetes and Asthma. 3. History would've been completely off. Going for a theory here, if animal testing were eliminated from our country, it would be obvious that many diseases would still be running rampant throughout the world. You see on the news cases of people offering up their own bodies to science. However, these cases are extremely rare and if animal testing were completely banned, than our country would be lacking in anti-biotics and medical procedures that might help save a person's life. 4. Animal testing on the animals is fairly small compared to the whole species. Let's face it. Animal testing is aimed at an average of about 115 million per year. It may seem like a lot, but there are two facts that undermine it. A. Most likely that scientists will take about a hundred per species from different countries or the U.S. It will not kill the whole species or even put them at the risk of extinction. The animals will most likely breed back the numbers within a few months . B. 115 million a year. Compare that to the number of animals in the U.S. All I have for now! And by the way, I thank my opponent for a good debate. Whoever he/she is.

Science

Animal-Testing-is-Acceptable/1/

Very nice rebuttal. Ok, I'll go in order again. Its true, people do not want to be tested on. But if that is the case why should we subject animals to do things we know are not in our best interest? No dog wants to be dyed 17 different shades of strawberry blond and neither does a human. It is unethical to test things on animals that we know are not beneficial to the person being tested. A. Unfortunately, cosmetics are not the only things tested on animals. People will not deny being guinea pigs for cosmetics for money, as the potential risk would be much lower than that of a dangerous disease. Same as before, people fear being tested on. I don't think that a human would prefer having something like Herpes or AIDS injected into them for testing. The animals fight back, but humans fight harder. We've made it so we're always protected and that animal testing is acceptable, so it's Humans 1 Undomesticated animals 0. (I have no idea if that answered your rebuttal, but if it did, give me a sign!) Animal testing has helped in discovering cures before or around the time we started taking cells from humans to help cure diseases. What's being used to help find a cure for AIDS? Not pig cells, because no matter how close an animal is to the human cell structure, a human is a human. With current technology we can simply extract cells from humans to be tested on rather then harming an animal to look for a cure that they couldn't care less about. A. Ah, this one is hard to go against, but I'll try! No matter how advanced our technology is currently, we still don't have enough knowledge to conduct a series of most likely needed tests. A few cells is worth nothing in the long run, and we'll need the structure completely. As for animals, they have the basic neccessities like us. Scientists will use them to avoid using humans, however, if they get close to finding a cure, they'll switch to a human. Example, polio. Scientists had conducted numerous experiments on monkeys, and through the information, they drew closer to finding a cure. Finally, when they thought they had achieved their goal, they switched the testing onto a human and took samples of their tissue. Through the information gained from testing on monkeys, the scientists managed to find a cure for polio for a human. As stated in the second contention, yes animal testing was needed in the past but with current technology we do not need to subject animals to unfair treatment and unethical practice. A. Stated in previous one. Our technology may be advanced but still not enough that we don't need a live specimen to examine. Animals reproduce, and humans are animals. Humans produce as well so saying that testing is ok because "they will just repopulate" would need to be justifiable for all animals, that would include humans. This contention goes more in favor of the negative side because humans repopulate fast, just like most animals A. For this one, it's the cruel truth. The animals will repopulate, and I'm taking the tyrannical view here, but to us humans, others lives are expendable as long as we remain unharmed. Actually, most military leaders have thought that human lives were expendable as long as the result was their victory. Take World War I. One side needed to dominate the other to justify the deaths of all the soldiers. It's the same for us, as long as the animals will repopulate themselves, (and there's a high chance that they will) it justifies our means if we find a cure in the end. Your turn!

ClumsyKlutz

Very nice rebuttal. Ok, I'll go in order again. Its true, people do not want to be tested on. But if that is the case why should we subject animals to do things we know are not in our best interest? No dog wants to be dyed 17 different shades of strawberry blond and neither does a human. It is unethical to test things on animals that we know are not beneficial to the person being tested. A. Unfortunately, cosmetics are not the only things tested on animals. People will not deny being guinea pigs for cosmetics for money, as the potential risk would be much lower than that of a dangerous disease. Same as before, people fear being tested on. I don't think that a human would prefer having something like Herpes or AIDS injected into them for testing. The animals fight back, but humans fight harder. We've made it so we're always protected and that animal testing is acceptable, so it's Humans 1 Undomesticated animals 0. (I have no idea if that answered your rebuttal, but if it did, give me a sign!) Animal testing has helped in discovering cures before or around the time we started taking cells from humans to help cure diseases. What's being used to help find a cure for AIDS? Not pig cells, because no matter how close an animal is to the human cell structure, a human is a human. With current technology we can simply extract cells from humans to be tested on rather then harming an animal to look for a cure that they couldn't care less about. A. Ah, this one is hard to go against, but I'll try! No matter how advanced our technology is currently, we still don't have enough knowledge to conduct a series of most likely needed tests. A few cells is worth nothing in the long run, and we'll need the structure completely. As for animals, they have the basic neccessities like us. Scientists will use them to avoid using humans, however, if they get close to finding a cure, they'll switch to a human. Example, polio. Scientists had conducted numerous experiments on monkeys, and through the information, they drew closer to finding a cure. Finally, when they thought they had achieved their goal, they switched the testing onto a human and took samples of their tissue. Through the information gained from testing on monkeys, the scientists managed to find a cure for polio for a human. As stated in the second contention, yes animal testing was needed in the past but with current technology we do not need to subject animals to unfair treatment and unethical practice. A. Stated in previous one. Our technology may be advanced but still not enough that we don't need a live specimen to examine. Animals reproduce, and humans are animals. Humans produce as well so saying that testing is ok because "they will just repopulate" would need to be justifiable for all animals, that would include humans. This contention goes more in favor of the negative side because humans repopulate fast, just like most animals A. For this one, it's the cruel truth. The animals will repopulate, and I'm taking the tyrannical view here, but to us humans, others lives are expendable as long as we remain unharmed. Actually, most military leaders have thought that human lives were expendable as long as the result was their victory. Take World War I. One side needed to dominate the other to justify the deaths of all the soldiers. It's the same for us, as long as the animals will repopulate themselves, (and there's a high chance that they will) it justifies our means if we find a cure in the end. Your turn!

Science

Animal-Testing-is-Acceptable/1/

Wow, that was good! I don't think I'll beat it, but let's commence the final round! 1. Alone, human volunteers aren't enough, I'm going to be a broken record here but, humans are too SCARED to go through with it on their own. Of course animals are needed! Even if it is immoral, humans will mostly choose to live rather than to commit an act of immorality. 2. Cells can only get you so far! Have you heard of Professor Aziz? He's a neurologist who discovered deep brain stimulation. With only cells, it would've been impossible. Professor Aziz needed a live, working brain to study the mechanics and conduct experiments. Since it would've been potentially lethal, most people did not volunteer for this project, and Aziz had to use monkey brains. They work similarly to ours and it helped by giving him the breakthrough he needed! 3. Same thing as above, sorry. 4. Once again, the cells are not ENOUGH. We cannot use the mechanics of the cell to study something like the brain or etc. We need a living specimen. And to feed the earth, that's mass slaughter. However, once again, compare the numbers. It is ridiculously small compared to the number of animals in the U.S. Mass slaughter for food would probably eliminate half or even three-fourths of the animals in the U.S. We can't recover from that. However, testing only brings a few into play and not even that many of the same species! Going back to using cells for our experiments would not lead to any serious breakthroughs. It would take twice, maybe even triple the time it would take if we conducted experiments on living specimens. Besides, animals have parts related to ours. Monkeys are especially closely related (an obvious fact, but I'll state it anyway). We can use their parts and conduct experiments to help us find breakthroughs for diseases that have ravaged the world. Through experimenting on animals, we can find antibiotics to all the crippling conditions and harsh diseases. I finish my argument with this: Animal experimentation is crucial as it has already found cures to many dangerous diseases in the past, and it will continue to do so! Finish this DeYoung! Good luck and I want to thank you for an especially good first debate. You've been a good opponent, no, not just good, probably one of the best I've had to date, thank you!

ClumsyKlutz

Wow, that was good! I don't think I'll beat it, but let's commence the final round! 1. Alone, human volunteers aren't enough, I'm going to be a broken record here but, humans are too SCARED to go through with it on their own. Of course animals are needed! Even if it is immoral, humans will mostly choose to live rather than to commit an act of immorality. 2. Cells can only get you so far! Have you heard of Professor Aziz? He's a neurologist who discovered deep brain stimulation. With only cells, it would've been impossible. Professor Aziz needed a live, working brain to study the mechanics and conduct experiments. Since it would've been potentially lethal, most people did not volunteer for this project, and Aziz had to use monkey brains. They work similarly to ours and it helped by giving him the breakthrough he needed! 3. Same thing as above, sorry. 4. Once again, the cells are not ENOUGH. We cannot use the mechanics of the cell to study something like the brain or etc. We need a living specimen. And to feed the earth, that's mass slaughter. However, once again, compare the numbers. It is ridiculously small compared to the number of animals in the U.S. Mass slaughter for food would probably eliminate half or even three-fourths of the animals in the U.S. We can't recover from that. However, testing only brings a few into play and not even that many of the same species! Going back to using cells for our experiments would not lead to any serious breakthroughs. It would take twice, maybe even triple the time it would take if we conducted experiments on living specimens. Besides, animals have parts related to ours. Monkeys are especially closely related (an obvious fact, but I'll state it anyway). We can use their parts and conduct experiments to help us find breakthroughs for diseases that have ravaged the world. Through experimenting on animals, we can find antibiotics to all the crippling conditions and harsh diseases. I finish my argument with this: Animal experimentation is crucial as it has already found cures to many dangerous diseases in the past, and it will continue to do so! Finish this DeYoung! Good luck and I want to thank you for an especially good first debate. You've been a good opponent, no, not just good, probably one of the best I've had to date, thank you!

Science

Animal-Testing-is-Acceptable/1/

Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?

boom101

Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)

boom101

Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

Firstly, I thank Con, for your rebuttal, and will proceed with my own. Well, you have stated that while the food industry uses an insignificant amount of animals, it does have a breeding program, for example, farms, albeit, it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. They have stated this quote, "We breed animals for four principal reasons: as sources of usable products or services; for medical or scientific research; for aesthetic, cultural or ethical consideration; and as pets", proving my point of how a small amount of animals, used for medical purposes, also enables us to advance our drugs, has a breeding program, and comparing this to the food industry who, in fact, kill more than 55 billion animals per year, according to 'The Vegan Society of Peace', and yet only do this to satisfy their taste unlike finding cures for cancer, and saving millions of lives, shows that animal testing is a great thing. This proves how animal testing is far more beneficial than all of the other industries that use animals, and how despite using a small amount of animals, as mentioned before, they advance us, as humans, so much more than all the others. Do you really want to stop animal testing? Also, I believe you have failed to comprehend my other point, (as you proved by saying, "and nothing will happen to the population of the animals?") which elaborates on, the fact, that, if we stop animal testing, the human race could possibly wipe out; and if the human race is wiped out, the food web/chain, would be out of control, distorted, which would then allow some species to die out, eventually dying out all living creatures. Animal testing would save millions of human lives, thus continuing the human race. By all means, animals are vital for our living. I do believe that animals are affected by the activities of humans. But it is unfortunate that you are slow to realise that as a result we, as humans, have a duty of care for all living things, and animal testing is essential for animals and humans to not become extinct. Also, animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or death. Some tests are even as simple as seeing different wet animals shake themselves. (1) Besides, even if all testing animals died, it must be considered how this is done for the benefit of us staying alive, which as mentioned before, is a must for animals to live. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Under these circumstances, would you want animals to be stopped from testing? Millions of human lives depend on bettering our medication, would you rather see millions of humans dying, or 20 rats in a laboratory? Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. It must be understood that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it does, and will continue to save lives. Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. Animal testing is the least of the reasons, albeit, the diversity of the tiger count in the whole world, is quite touching, and depressing. Anyhow, even if animal testing is stopped, people will still do this illegally, for the sake of money, albeit, animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals, the intention for animal testing is to benefit and advance our drugs, and not to end the animal races. Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives, and there aren't any satisfactory alternatives because animals are the closest things related to humans, and for accurate medicine results, that won't kill or harm humans, we need to test our products on other creatures, which enables us to verify if the results are positive and actually work right in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. In conclusion, animal testing is extremely beneficial for both humans and animals, if we continue animal testing, we will find new cures, and save millions of lives. Animal testing is to advance drugs, population control, and morality. (1) <URL>... . Thank you. :)

boom101

Firstly, I thank Con, for your rebuttal, and will proceed with my own. Well, you have stated that while the food industry uses an insignificant amount of animals, it does have a breeding program, for example, farms, albeit, it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. They have stated this quote, "We breed animals for four principal reasons: as sources of usable products or services; for medical or scientific research; for aesthetic, cultural or ethical consideration; and as pets", proving my point of how a small amount of animals, used for medical purposes, also enables us to advance our drugs, has a breeding program, and comparing this to the food industry who, in fact, kill more than 55 billion animals per year, according to 'The Vegan Society of Peace', and yet only do this to satisfy their taste unlike finding cures for cancer, and saving millions of lives, shows that animal testing is a great thing. This proves how animal testing is far more beneficial than all of the other industries that use animals, and how despite using a small amount of animals, as mentioned before, they advance us, as humans, so much more than all the others. Do you really want to stop animal testing? Also, I believe you have failed to comprehend my other point, (as you proved by saying, "and nothing will happen to the population of the animals?") which elaborates on, the fact, that, if we stop animal testing, the human race could possibly wipe out; and if the human race is wiped out, the food web/chain, would be out of control, distorted, which would then allow some species to die out, eventually dying out all living creatures. Animal testing would save millions of human lives, thus continuing the human race. By all means, animals are vital for our living. I do believe that animals are affected by the activities of humans. But it is unfortunate that you are slow to realise that as a result we, as humans, have a duty of care for all living things, and animal testing is essential for animals and humans to not become extinct. Also, animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or death. Some tests are even as simple as seeing different wet animals shake themselves. (1) Besides, even if all testing animals died, it must be considered how this is done for the benefit of us staying alive, which as mentioned before, is a must for animals to live. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Under these circumstances, would you want animals to be stopped from testing? Millions of human lives depend on bettering our medication, would you rather see millions of humans dying, or 20 rats in a laboratory? Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. It must be understood that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it does, and will continue to save lives. Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. Animal testing is the least of the reasons, albeit, the diversity of the tiger count in the whole world, is quite touching, and depressing. Anyhow, even if animal testing is stopped, people will still do this illegally, for the sake of money, albeit, animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals, the intention for animal testing is to benefit and advance our drugs, and not to end the animal races. Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives, and there aren't any satisfactory alternatives because animals are the closest things related to humans, and for accurate medicine results, that won't kill or harm humans, we need to test our products on other creatures, which enables us to verify if the results are positive and actually work right in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. In conclusion, animal testing is extremely beneficial for both humans and animals, if we continue animal testing, we will find new cures, and save millions of lives. Animal testing is to advance drugs, population control, and morality. (1) http://www.bbc.com... . Thank you. :)

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

I agree to debate against the topic,Pro.

rajun

I agree to debate against the topic,Pro.

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

Thank you, Pro. For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. " A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well." Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry.(1) (1)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; " If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record!" And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko.(2)(3) (2) <URL>... (3)<URL> What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure...some for the welfare...and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200!! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?

rajun

Thank you, Pro. For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it. " A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well." Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry.(1) (1)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06; " If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record!" And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko.(2)(3) (2) http://www.dw.de... (3)www.tokaygeckos.org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06; What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction. Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure...some for the welfare...and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200!! In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

Thank you, pro, for your rebuttal and arguments. " it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. " It is true that there are breeding programs also occurring in animal testing but is it that all the animal testing that is occurring in this world contains animal breeding programs? and is it that all the species of animals that are being tested on have led to successful results? Rats are given infected blood to see what effect it takes on them. Is it fair?(a) Is it that the Tokay gecko is bred in all the animal testing labs? Then why is there such a high demand for it? Why is it that the 'tokay" call that I used to hear every evening near my home has now ceased?(b) (a) <URL>... (b) <URL>... "Also, animals that go through animal testing are not going through pain and suffering or death." Animal testing brutality is an endless list.(c) Animals endure chemicals being dripped into their eyes, injected into their bodies, forced up their nostrils or forced down their throats. They are addicted to drugs, forced to inhale/ingest toxic substances, subjected to maternal deprivation, deafened, blinded, burned, stapled, and infected with disease viruses. These treatments are exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, and worse yet, undercover investigations have exposed violations of animal welfare policies and cases of extreme negligence at labs and universities. That is the point. Negligence. It is like who cares for a few animals? Animal testing labs that are supposed to be safe,clean,anti-cruel etc...have turned out to be cruelty labs where even if not desired, animals are killed because of negligence. (c) <URL>... "Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals" Tigers for their skin, teeth and other features? Skin is nowhere to be found now,Pro. The bones are used. The bones for medicinal uses. Now, how did this theory come into being that tiger bones are medicinal? As I mentioned before, this is something that happens when animal testing is done but then stopped but people carry it on illegally. Tiger is just an example of what animal testing leads to. It inspires other individuals to carry these tests themselves for money. Animal testing is not the reason for close extinction of animals? How can one guarantee that when examples of tokay gecko and Giggles are prevalent? Animal testing leads to the high demand of animals. illegal poaching and large scale hunting of such animals occur because of money. Leading to extinction of such animals. How can we say that animal testing is perfectly safe and O.K in such a case? "Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives" And from which reliable resource does such an argument come from? Of-course there are alternatives to animal testing. animals are also not the closests sample of humans. (e) Cell culture, human tissue use, Vitro modular immune. many of these are in use but this of-course are costlier than animal testing but they are used in respectable labs but as I said, not only respectable labs do these test and prefer animals for the cheapness. Animal testing is never helpful in population control. It is leading to extinction. (e) <URL>... Conclusion.... I agree that animal testing is having benefits but why helpless animals should suffer when there are alternatives? Animal testing should be made illegal and banned and only alternatives should be used so that only respectable and safe labs funded by the government can carry these tests. This will not only ensure the welfare of animals and also help us find cures and save lives. Thank you.

rajun

Thank you, pro, for your rebuttal and arguments. " it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. " It is true that there are breeding programs also occurring in animal testing but is it that all the animal testing that is occurring in this world contains animal breeding programs? and is it that all the species of animals that are being tested on have led to successful results? Rats are given infected blood to see what effect it takes on them. Is it fair?(a) Is it that the Tokay gecko is bred in all the animal testing labs? Then why is there such a high demand for it? Why is it that the 'tokay" call that I used to hear every evening near my home has now ceased?(b) (a) http://t0.gstatic.com... (b) http://upload.wikimedia.org... "Also, animals that go through animal testing are not going through pain and suffering or death." Animal testing brutality is an endless list.(c) Animals endure chemicals being dripped into their eyes, injected into their bodies, forced up their nostrils or forced down their throats. They are addicted to drugs, forced to inhale/ingest toxic substances, subjected to maternal deprivation, deafened, blinded, burned, stapled, and infected with disease viruses. These treatments are exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, and worse yet, undercover investigations have exposed violations of animal welfare policies and cases of extreme negligence at labs and universities. That is the point. Negligence. It is like who cares for a few animals? Animal testing labs that are supposed to be safe,clean,anti-cruel etc...have turned out to be cruelty labs where even if not desired, animals are killed because of negligence. (c) http://www.downtoearth.org... "Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals" Tigers for their skin, teeth and other features? Skin is nowhere to be found now,Pro. The bones are used. The bones for medicinal uses. Now, how did this theory come into being that tiger bones are medicinal? As I mentioned before, this is something that happens when animal testing is done but then stopped but people carry it on illegally. Tiger is just an example of what animal testing leads to. It inspires other individuals to carry these tests themselves for money. Animal testing is not the reason for close extinction of animals? How can one guarantee that when examples of tokay gecko and Giggles are prevalent? Animal testing leads to the high demand of animals. illegal poaching and large scale hunting of such animals occur because of money. Leading to extinction of such animals. How can we say that animal testing is perfectly safe and O.K in such a case? "Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives" And from which reliable resource does such an argument come from? Of-course there are alternatives to animal testing. animals are also not the closests sample of humans. (e) Cell culture, human tissue use, Vitro modular immune. many of these are in use but this of-course are costlier than animal testing but they are used in respectable labs but as I said, not only respectable labs do these test and prefer animals for the cheapness. Animal testing is never helpful in population control. It is leading to extinction. (e) http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion.... I agree that animal testing is having benefits but why helpless animals should suffer when there are alternatives? Animal testing should be made illegal and banned and only alternatives should be used so that only respectable and safe labs funded by the government can carry these tests. This will not only ensure the welfare of animals and also help us find cures and save lives. Thank you.

Science

Animal-Testing-should-be-allowed/1/

Its pretty basic Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities

Jlconservative

Its pretty basic Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities

Politics

Animal-Testing/1/

haha Ok, well lets take a look at your claims, 1. "and actually if you look at the numbers, more has been discovered without animals then with" wow ok well I am not certain why this has anything to do with thy we should not test on animals, making a statement like this is sort of irrelevant and naive, in that sense we should stop oceanic exploration because we have discovered more things in space.. dose not quite make sense. 2. "Think about penicillin, radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in copernicus' time. Animals were around, and it couldve been tested on them, but the bottom line was it wasnt neccesary." haha well first of all according to webmaster,Encyclopedia,Webster, and Bud Wolfons MD. Penicillin was tested on lab mice and sheep so that was something you either research and found the wrong answer or you just have no clue what your saying, personally I vote for the latter. 3."Radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in Copernicus time" wow.... I'm sorry I thought this was almost to stupid to quote, first of all radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation have absolutely nothing to do with animal testing, the actual fact that you think that is some sort of ground to stand on is amusing, these theories did not and could not have been tested by using animals whatsoever. 4. "I have a dog, and all the dog people out there shiver at the prospect of their animal, their best friend, being tested for chanel no. 5." well..wow again, first of all you make it sound like the government breaks into houses takes little Annie's pet puppy and brings it to the mad scientists layers were he performs evil experiments on it....again this was a pretty foolish and naive claim.. according to RDS incorporated: "More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog." Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain. 5. "The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we create new drugs and test out new things, animals will always be there. We will not use them, however, because there is so much technology it is unnecesary. We are moving into an age of technology, and moving out of an age of animal testing." Ok well...I am either not dumb enough to understand what point your trying to make or I just cannot understand you. So I will just make a point on why it is necessary to use animal testing. Those who would seek to abolish animal research often claim that the use of animals in biomedical research is unnecessary because information can be obtained by alternative methods, such as test tubes and computers. What is often not realised is that scientists have strong ethical, economic and legal obligations to use animals in research only when absolutely necessary. A lot of effort goes into trying to reduce the numbers of animals used, and trying to develop new methods to replace animals. As a result, the number of laboratory animals used annually in the UK has almost halved in the last 20 years. Non-animal methods - tissue culture, computer modelling, studies of patients and populations - are very widely used. In fact, only about ten pence in every pound spent on medical research goes on animal studies. The word alternatives, often used to describe these non-animal methods, can lead to confusion because these methods are generally used alongside animal studies, not instead of them. All these techniques have their place, and it is rarely possible to substitute one for another. There are stages in any research programme when it is not enough to know how individual molecules, cells or tissues behave. The living body is much more than just a collection of these parts, and we need to understand how they interact, how they are controlled. There are ethical limits to the experiments that we can do using people, so the only alternative is to use the most suitable animal to study a particular disease or biological function. As science progresses, it may be possible to reduce the numbers of animals used in some areas. In other areas, the numbers of animals may increase. For instance, new and better animal models may be developed. It is now possible to breed animals with exactly the same genetic faults that cause some human diseases. So mice with cystic fibrosis, for example, have the symptoms as children with cystic fibrosis. These mice are the ideal way to test gene therapy, which may offer a medical breakthrough for the disease. Just as it is necessary to use animals in the study of normal body functions or the study of disease mechanisms, it is also necessary at the later stage of developing and testing treatments. It is unethical and illegal to expose patients to new medicines without being confident that they are likely to benefit and not be seriously harmed. Treatments must, therefore, be tested first in animals to establish their probable effectiveness and safety. They are then tested on human volunteers. The process is not perfect but testing in whole animals is by far the best way to protect people. Animal tests ensure that obviously toxic substances are not given to human beings and that doctors in charge of the human volunteer studies are made aware of possible serious side effects. For example, it is difficult to even imagine what range of test tube techniques or the complexity of computer systems would be necessary to mimic the amazing events that occur during the development and birth of a new baby. With present day technology, and even in the foreseeable future, this is simply not possible. By contrast, appropriate whole animal tests can detect potentially harmful effects of new treatments on foetal development and other events during pregnancy. Thus another thalidomide disaster is most unlikely. No one wants to use animals unnecessarily or to cause them unnecessary suffering. The guiding principles in animal research today are called the three Rs: * Refinement, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible * Reduction, to minimise the number of animals used * Replacement, to replace animal procedures with non- animal techniques wherever possible. Randomknowledge just a hint, get some facts in don't try and sneak lies or false information by me.

Jlconservative

haha Ok, well lets take a look at your claims, 1. "and actually if you look at the numbers, more has been discovered without animals then with" wow ok well I am not certain why this has anything to do with thy we should not test on animals, making a statement like this is sort of irrelevant and naive, in that sense we should stop oceanic exploration because we have discovered more things in space.. dose not quite make sense. 2. "Think about penicillin, radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in copernicus' time. Animals were around, and it couldve been tested on them, but the bottom line was it wasnt neccesary." haha well first of all according to webmaster,Encyclopedia,Webster, and Bud Wolfons MD. Penicillin was tested on lab mice and sheep so that was something you either research and found the wrong answer or you just have no clue what your saying, personally I vote for the latter. 3."Radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in Copernicus time" wow.... I'm sorry I thought this was almost to stupid to quote, first of all radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation have absolutely nothing to do with animal testing, the actual fact that you think that is some sort of ground to stand on is amusing, these theories did not and could not have been tested by using animals whatsoever. 4. "I have a dog, and all the dog people out there shiver at the prospect of their animal, their best friend, being tested for chanel no. 5." well..wow again, first of all you make it sound like the government breaks into houses takes little Annie's pet puppy and brings it to the mad scientists layers were he performs evil experiments on it....again this was a pretty foolish and naive claim.. according to RDS incorporated: "More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog." Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain. 5. "The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we create new drugs and test out new things, animals will always be there. We will not use them, however, because there is so much technology it is unnecesary. We are moving into an age of technology, and moving out of an age of animal testing." Ok well...I am either not dumb enough to understand what point your trying to make or I just cannot understand you. So I will just make a point on why it is necessary to use animal testing. Those who would seek to abolish animal research often claim that the use of animals in biomedical research is unnecessary because information can be obtained by alternative methods, such as test tubes and computers. What is often not realised is that scientists have strong ethical, economic and legal obligations to use animals in research only when absolutely necessary. A lot of effort goes into trying to reduce the numbers of animals used, and trying to develop new methods to replace animals. As a result, the number of laboratory animals used annually in the UK has almost halved in the last 20 years. Non-animal methods - tissue culture, computer modelling, studies of patients and populations - are very widely used. In fact, only about ten pence in every pound spent on medical research goes on animal studies. The word alternatives, often used to describe these non-animal methods, can lead to confusion because these methods are generally used alongside animal studies, not instead of them. All these techniques have their place, and it is rarely possible to substitute one for another. There are stages in any research programme when it is not enough to know how individual molecules, cells or tissues behave. The living body is much more than just a collection of these parts, and we need to understand how they interact, how they are controlled. There are ethical limits to the experiments that we can do using people, so the only alternative is to use the most suitable animal to study a particular disease or biological function. As science progresses, it may be possible to reduce the numbers of animals used in some areas. In other areas, the numbers of animals may increase. For instance, new and better animal models may be developed. It is now possible to breed animals with exactly the same genetic faults that cause some human diseases. So mice with cystic fibrosis, for example, have the symptoms as children with cystic fibrosis. These mice are the ideal way to test gene therapy, which may offer a medical breakthrough for the disease. Just as it is necessary to use animals in the study of normal body functions or the study of disease mechanisms, it is also necessary at the later stage of developing and testing treatments. It is unethical and illegal to expose patients to new medicines without being confident that they are likely to benefit and not be seriously harmed. Treatments must, therefore, be tested first in animals to establish their probable effectiveness and safety. They are then tested on human volunteers. The process is not perfect but testing in whole animals is by far the best way to protect people. Animal tests ensure that obviously toxic substances are not given to human beings and that doctors in charge of the human volunteer studies are made aware of possible serious side effects. For example, it is difficult to even imagine what range of test tube techniques or the complexity of computer systems would be necessary to mimic the amazing events that occur during the development and birth of a new baby. With present day technology, and even in the foreseeable future, this is simply not possible. By contrast, appropriate whole animal tests can detect potentially harmful effects of new treatments on foetal development and other events during pregnancy. Thus another thalidomide disaster is most unlikely. No one wants to use animals unnecessarily or to cause them unnecessary suffering. The guiding principles in animal research today are called the three Rs: * Refinement, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible * Reduction, to minimise the number of animals used * Replacement, to replace animal procedures with non- animal techniques wherever possible. Randomknowledge just a hint, get some facts in don't try and sneak lies or false information by me.

Politics

Animal-Testing/1/

Randomknowledge just wanted to say don't take anything personal as far as I can tell your a polite and courteous individual. Now lets get started, I see you brought some facts to the table instead of your previous opinionated babel. However I am afraid that this still does not cut it and I could tell by the very beginning: "The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products." This debate was not about how animal testing is not necessary for "cosmetics or household products." This debate is a more broad approach should we use animal testing in general, more specifically medication. In my final argument I will list several myths about animal testing and produce the true and genuine facts about this controversial topic. Myth: Research on animals is not relevant to people because animals are different from people. People and animals suffer from different illnesses. Fact:All mammals are descended from common ancestors, and one result of this is that humans are biologically very similar to other mammals. All mammals, including humans, have the same organs - heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc - performing the same functions and controlled by the same mechanisms, via the blood stream and nervous system. Of course there are minor differences, but these are far outweighed by the remarkable similarities. The differences can give important clues about diseases and how they might be treated - for instance, if we knew why the mouse with muscular dystrophy suffers less muscle wasting than human patients, this might lead to a treatment for this debilitating and fatal disorder. Vitamins and hormones identified by animal experiments were found to have similar functions in people. The following animal hormones have all been used successfully in human patients: * insulin from the pancreas of pigs or cows * thyrotropin from cows' pituitaries * calcitonin from the parathyroid gland of salmon * adrenocorticotrophic hormone from pituitaries of farm animals * oxytocin and vasopressin from pig posterior pituitary glands Such similarities mean that studies in animals have led to the medicines which have transformed the treatment of many diseases during this century. The similarities also explain why many veterinary medicines are the same as those used for human patients: examples include antibiotics, pain killers and tranquilisers. Over one third of the veterinary medicines that are used to treat animals are the same as, or very similar to, those used to treat human patients. Most human diseases exist in at least one other species. Illnesses such as cancer, heart failure, asthma, rabies and malaria are suffered by many species and can be treated in much the same way. A list of some 350 animal diseases with a human counterpart has been compiled by the veterinarian Charles Cornelius1 who considers that the study of animal diseases with a view to providing treatment for the human counterpart is "a neglected medical resource". This issue is also well-covered in an easily obtained source, ie the section on "Animal Disease" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. This contains an abbreviated list of 100 diseases common to animals and man and states: "... it is likely that, for every known human disease, an identical or similar disease exists in at least one other species". Myth: Animal research has not made any contribution to medical progress. Fact:The discovery of insulin in the 1920s by Banting and Best in Canada is a good example of the contribution of animal research to medical progress. Their key finding was that injections of an extract of pancreatic cells, which contained the hormone insulin, relieved the symptoms of diabetes in dogs. Insulin was soon found to be highly effective in people, and, as a result, many millions of diabetics are alive and well today. Diabetic dogs have also benefited from insulin treatment. Each decade since the discovery of insulin has seen the introduction of new kinds of treatments for many diseases. During the 1930s and '40s, sulphonamides and antibiotics were developed to treat bacterial infections, vaccines were introduced to control viral infections, and surgery advanced with modern anaesthetics and the heart-lung machine. Kidney transplants, hip replacement surgery and drugs to control high blood pressure and mental illnesses followed in the '50s and afterwards. New treatments of leukaemia, asthma and ulcers appeared in the '60s and '70s. Drugs which delay the development of AIDS and other diseases caused by viruses, and improved drugs to prevent the rejection of transplants were developed in the '80s and '90s. That each of these and the many other advances were critically dependent on animal experiments is a historical fact. Given continued research using animals, we can expect further advances in the treatment of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis and crippling joint disease. It is very difficult to see how we could make such medical advances without animal research. MYTH:Many pointless, unnecessary animal experiments are carried out FACT Unnecessary animal experiments are very unlikely in the U.S.A for the following reasons: * The strict controls on animal research, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, do not allow animals to be used to obtain information that is obtainable by other means. * Research using animals is very expensive because the animals are costly to buy or breed, to house, and to care for, and the work itself is slow and labour intensive. * Funds for biomedical research are limited, so each research proposal is rigorously assessed by panels of experts. Trivial, irrelevant or repetitive work will not attract funding. MYTH:Most research animals are cats, dogs or monkeys. FACT:More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog. Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain. Some people believe that monkeys and apes (primates) are used in great numbers, but they represent less than one in every 600 research animals. Primates are needed for research into very serious conditions such as AIDS and Alzheimer's disease (senile dementia). MYTH:Laboratory animals suffer great pain and distress. FACT:Most experiments do not cause significant pain or distress, since they involve only mild procedures such as a single injection, taking a small blood sample, or a change of diet. In most of the remainder, anaesthetics or pain-killing drugs are used to prevent discomfort. In the very few experiments which could cause significant discomfort and for which the use of anaesthetics is not appropriate, every precaution is taken to minimise distress. All experiments must be approved by Home Office Inspectors, who are doctors and vets with the knowledge and experience to weigh any distress involved in an experiment against the potential benefit for science and for humanity. The fact is animal testing does more for us in the field of medication than most people realize, some are blinded by lies,stupidity,myths, and influences into believing that animal testing is rooms of monkeys and puppies waiting to be worked on by doctor Frankenstein, or cages of innocent mice being slaughtered daily for useless tests. The facts are the tests are relevant,perfectly moral and necessary, and it has,is and will save lives, we are the dominate species because of our brains, lets use them.

Jlconservative

Randomknowledge just wanted to say don't take anything personal as far as I can tell your a polite and courteous individual. Now lets get started, I see you brought some facts to the table instead of your previous opinionated babel. However I am afraid that this still does not cut it and I could tell by the very beginning: "The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products." This debate was not about how animal testing is not necessary for "cosmetics or household products." This debate is a more broad approach should we use animal testing in general, more specifically medication. In my final argument I will list several myths about animal testing and produce the true and genuine facts about this controversial topic. Myth: Research on animals is not relevant to people because animals are different from people. People and animals suffer from different illnesses. Fact:All mammals are descended from common ancestors, and one result of this is that humans are biologically very similar to other mammals. All mammals, including humans, have the same organs - heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc - performing the same functions and controlled by the same mechanisms, via the blood stream and nervous system. Of course there are minor differences, but these are far outweighed by the remarkable similarities. The differences can give important clues about diseases and how they might be treated - for instance, if we knew why the mouse with muscular dystrophy suffers less muscle wasting than human patients, this might lead to a treatment for this debilitating and fatal disorder. Vitamins and hormones identified by animal experiments were found to have similar functions in people. The following animal hormones have all been used successfully in human patients: * insulin from the pancreas of pigs or cows * thyrotropin from cows' pituitaries * calcitonin from the parathyroid gland of salmon * adrenocorticotrophic hormone from pituitaries of farm animals * oxytocin and vasopressin from pig posterior pituitary glands Such similarities mean that studies in animals have led to the medicines which have transformed the treatment of many diseases during this century. The similarities also explain why many veterinary medicines are the same as those used for human patients: examples include antibiotics, pain killers and tranquilisers. Over one third of the veterinary medicines that are used to treat animals are the same as, or very similar to, those used to treat human patients. Most human diseases exist in at least one other species. Illnesses such as cancer, heart failure, asthma, rabies and malaria are suffered by many species and can be treated in much the same way. A list of some 350 animal diseases with a human counterpart has been compiled by the veterinarian Charles Cornelius1 who considers that the study of animal diseases with a view to providing treatment for the human counterpart is "a neglected medical resource". This issue is also well-covered in an easily obtained source, ie the section on "Animal Disease" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. This contains an abbreviated list of 100 diseases common to animals and man and states: "... it is likely that, for every known human disease, an identical or similar disease exists in at least one other species". Myth: Animal research has not made any contribution to medical progress. Fact:The discovery of insulin in the 1920s by Banting and Best in Canada is a good example of the contribution of animal research to medical progress. Their key finding was that injections of an extract of pancreatic cells, which contained the hormone insulin, relieved the symptoms of diabetes in dogs. Insulin was soon found to be highly effective in people, and, as a result, many millions of diabetics are alive and well today. Diabetic dogs have also benefited from insulin treatment. Each decade since the discovery of insulin has seen the introduction of new kinds of treatments for many diseases. During the 1930s and '40s, sulphonamides and antibiotics were developed to treat bacterial infections, vaccines were introduced to control viral infections, and surgery advanced with modern anaesthetics and the heart-lung machine. Kidney transplants, hip replacement surgery and drugs to control high blood pressure and mental illnesses followed in the '50s and afterwards. New treatments of leukaemia, asthma and ulcers appeared in the '60s and '70s. Drugs which delay the development of AIDS and other diseases caused by viruses, and improved drugs to prevent the rejection of transplants were developed in the '80s and '90s. That each of these and the many other advances were critically dependent on animal experiments is a historical fact. Given continued research using animals, we can expect further advances in the treatment of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis and crippling joint disease. It is very difficult to see how we could make such medical advances without animal research. MYTH:Many pointless, unnecessary animal experiments are carried out FACT Unnecessary animal experiments are very unlikely in the U.S.A for the following reasons: * The strict controls on animal research, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, do not allow animals to be used to obtain information that is obtainable by other means. * Research using animals is very expensive because the animals are costly to buy or breed, to house, and to care for, and the work itself is slow and labour intensive. * Funds for biomedical research are limited, so each research proposal is rigorously assessed by panels of experts. Trivial, irrelevant or repetitive work will not attract funding. MYTH:Most research animals are cats, dogs or monkeys. FACT:More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog. Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain. Some people believe that monkeys and apes (primates) are used in great numbers, but they represent less than one in every 600 research animals. Primates are needed for research into very serious conditions such as AIDS and Alzheimer's disease (senile dementia). MYTH:Laboratory animals suffer great pain and distress. FACT:Most experiments do not cause significant pain or distress, since they involve only mild procedures such as a single injection, taking a small blood sample, or a change of diet. In most of the remainder, anaesthetics or pain-killing drugs are used to prevent discomfort. In the very few experiments which could cause significant discomfort and for which the use of anaesthetics is not appropriate, every precaution is taken to minimise distress. All experiments must be approved by Home Office Inspectors, who are doctors and vets with the knowledge and experience to weigh any distress involved in an experiment against the potential benefit for science and for humanity. The fact is animal testing does more for us in the field of medication than most people realize, some are blinded by lies,stupidity,myths, and influences into believing that animal testing is rooms of monkeys and puppies waiting to be worked on by doctor Frankenstein, or cages of innocent mice being slaughtered daily for useless tests. The facts are the tests are relevant,perfectly moral and necessary, and it has,is and will save lives, we are the dominate species because of our brains, lets use them.

Politics

Animal-Testing/1/

A word before we begin. A wise Chinese philosopher once criticized a wealthy man who was staring at the fish in his pond. "how happy they must be, to be swimming in refreshing water on such a sunny day" How are we to know whether they are happy or not? If animals could think like humans, wouldn't it just be another normal day? Would they really be happy as opposed to emotionless? Is it right for us to pretend we can think through the minds of fish? Humans anthropomorphize everything. We call the skies happy when they are blue, and angry when a storm is on the horizon. We apply everything we know about ourselves onto everything else. The reason why many people find it difficult to harm other animals is simply that they see humanity in things that aren't human. This misplaced empathy can really screw up our judgment. ************** That being said, I will now begin my argument. No one likes animal cruelty. It seems inhumane to abuse our position as dominant species of this planet. But by whose standards? We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes. This includes other living things. Please don't misunderstand. Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing. Animal testing provides us with many important things. Namely, medications. Sure, there are other things like dietary supplements, hormones, cosmetics, but medication is probably the most important. Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting. But for every rabbit or rat that we inadvertently kill, hundreds of thousands of human lives could potentially be saved. Another issue: Do non-human animals have human rights? No. This is absurd. The concept of rights is artificial in and of itself. Nature doesn't believe in fair or unfair. There is no justice in nature. Especially not in a survival-of-the-fittest, evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world.

Kleptin

A word before we begin. A wise Chinese philosopher once criticized a wealthy man who was staring at the fish in his pond. "how happy they must be, to be swimming in refreshing water on such a sunny day" How are we to know whether they are happy or not? If animals could think like humans, wouldn't it just be another normal day? Would they really be happy as opposed to emotionless? Is it right for us to pretend we can think through the minds of fish? Humans anthropomorphize everything. We call the skies happy when they are blue, and angry when a storm is on the horizon. We apply everything we know about ourselves onto everything else. The reason why many people find it difficult to harm other animals is simply that they see humanity in things that aren't human. This misplaced empathy can really screw up our judgment. ************** That being said, I will now begin my argument. No one likes animal cruelty. It seems inhumane to abuse our position as dominant species of this planet. But by whose standards? We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes. This includes other living things. Please don't misunderstand. Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing. Animal testing provides us with many important things. Namely, medications. Sure, there are other things like dietary supplements, hormones, cosmetics, but medication is probably the most important. Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting. But for every rabbit or rat that we inadvertently kill, hundreds of thousands of human lives could potentially be saved. Another issue: Do non-human animals have human rights? No. This is absurd. The concept of rights is artificial in and of itself. Nature doesn't believe in fair or unfair. There is no justice in nature. Especially not in a survival-of-the-fittest, evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals. Feel free to describe it with human ideals and through a human lens all you want, but know that it does nothing to validate your argument. "We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution." That's your opinion. Have you seen our technological advancement? The fact that our life expectancy has more than doubled its natural length? There is no comparison between the human species and the next most fit species. Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species. And by the way, the extinction of other species is not a mark of negativity. Thousands of species become extinct naturally. There is nothing inherently bad about a species going extinct, other than not being able to see them in a zoo. "Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals." I challenge this claim. I feel you have no evidence for it and thus, I will call it out as invalid. I also feel you have completely missed my argument and were just skimming through it and saw the word "poison". When medications have side effects, the lab animals pay the price. This allows us to refine the drug to make it safe. If anything, animal testing creates LESS poisonous substances for testing. "We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures." I can label you a pink llama and it would not help this debate. Labeling them as poor creatures and labeling our treatment of them as torture does little to show that you have an unbiased and logical explanation of your belief. It gives me the impression that your personal beliefs and biases are the only thing you have to convince me of your argument. **************************** My opponent is clearly a very caring and considerate person. However, my opponent has made absolutely no logical argument against animal testing. My opponent has refused, and thus, conceded all the points I made about animal testing being necessary to save human lives, and about animals not having rights. I have given my reasons and I now invite my opponent to provide me with a logical argument whereby it is overwhelmingly shown that animal testing should be banned for objective reasons.

Kleptin

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals. Feel free to describe it with human ideals and through a human lens all you want, but know that it does nothing to validate your argument. "We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution." That's your opinion. Have you seen our technological advancement? The fact that our life expectancy has more than doubled its natural length? There is no comparison between the human species and the next most fit species. Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species. And by the way, the extinction of other species is not a mark of negativity. Thousands of species become extinct naturally. There is nothing inherently bad about a species going extinct, other than not being able to see them in a zoo. "Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals." I challenge this claim. I feel you have no evidence for it and thus, I will call it out as invalid. I also feel you have completely missed my argument and were just skimming through it and saw the word "poison". When medications have side effects, the lab animals pay the price. This allows us to refine the drug to make it safe. If anything, animal testing creates LESS poisonous substances for testing. "We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures." I can label you a pink llama and it would not help this debate. Labeling them as poor creatures and labeling our treatment of them as torture does little to show that you have an unbiased and logical explanation of your belief. It gives me the impression that your personal beliefs and biases are the only thing you have to convince me of your argument. **************************** My opponent is clearly a very caring and considerate person. However, my opponent has made absolutely no logical argument against animal testing. My opponent has refused, and thus, conceded all the points I made about animal testing being necessary to save human lives, and about animals not having rights. I have given my reasons and I now invite my opponent to provide me with a logical argument whereby it is overwhelmingly shown that animal testing should be banned for objective reasons.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

"Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant." An animal cannot be tortured if it simply experiences physical pain stimulus. It must also have the intelligence and metal capacity to understand being trapped in a position where the sole purpose of the transgressor is to cause continuous, physical pain. A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured. It would simply keep trying to escape from the pain. Since escaping from a negative source is simple a biological function, and you seem to be against that, it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc. There must be ANOTHER component in play besides just causing them displeasure. This is mental anguish. "Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?" Animal testing has little to nothing to do with the ozone layer. We should go back on track. Yes. Because since we are unable to create or simulate life, we do not have an easy way to determine how certain medications will affect the organs of a body. We don't know everything about the body structure, and we don't know all the chemical pathways. Therefore, the only possibility is to make a drug based on a concept, what little we DO know, then pop it into a biological system and see if anything bad happens. That's how we made every single medication so far. Getting rid of animal testing is severe. It would leave us with two choices: Either stop testing medication and just sell it, or test it on humans. Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead. ************ My opponent has once again sidestepped by request that I be provided with an argument as to WHY animal testing should be STOPPED. All my opponent has been doing, is trying to dispel my arguments FOR animal testing, but she has not offered a single objective reason why animal testing should be stopped. The only valid point she made was that there may be a better alternative, but I have already pointed out the the sacrifice would be dire if we did so. If animal testing helps us greatly, why should we stop? My opponent has also not given me what I requested specifically: proof that animals have rights. I have waited many, many rounds and my opponent has STILL not expressed an argument as to animal testing should be stopped other than "They don't want to be hurt". I hope that in this final round, my opponent will finally make a statement.

Kleptin

"Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant." An animal cannot be tortured if it simply experiences physical pain stimulus. It must also have the intelligence and metal capacity to understand being trapped in a position where the sole purpose of the transgressor is to cause continuous, physical pain. A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured. It would simply keep trying to escape from the pain. Since escaping from a negative source is simple a biological function, and you seem to be against that, it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc. There must be ANOTHER component in play besides just causing them displeasure. This is mental anguish. "Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?" Animal testing has little to nothing to do with the ozone layer. We should go back on track. Yes. Because since we are unable to create or simulate life, we do not have an easy way to determine how certain medications will affect the organs of a body. We don't know everything about the body structure, and we don't know all the chemical pathways. Therefore, the only possibility is to make a drug based on a concept, what little we DO know, then pop it into a biological system and see if anything bad happens. That's how we made every single medication so far. Getting rid of animal testing is severe. It would leave us with two choices: Either stop testing medication and just sell it, or test it on humans. Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead. ************ My opponent has once again sidestepped by request that I be provided with an argument as to WHY animal testing should be STOPPED. All my opponent has been doing, is trying to dispel my arguments FOR animal testing, but she has not offered a single objective reason why animal testing should be stopped. The only valid point she made was that there may be a better alternative, but I have already pointed out the the sacrifice would be dire if we did so. If animal testing helps us greatly, why should we stop? My opponent has also not given me what I requested specifically: proof that animals have rights. I have waited many, many rounds and my opponent has STILL not expressed an argument as to animal testing should be stopped other than "They don't want to be hurt". I hope that in this final round, my opponent will finally make a statement.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

"believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species:" "Many have died FROM animal testing." I understand your argument. You are essentially saying "Animal testing goes wrong. Sometimes, we think it works in animals, but then we accidentally kill people". The problem is, this does not show that we should ban animal testing. Banning animal testing would result in MORE human deaths because then we won't have ANY way of testing a medication or procedure. So your argument is void. "Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion." Scientific evidence. Rabbits do not have the mental capacity to develop the concepts we know as freedom and pain. They just experience pain. And in this sense, torture would mean both a physical and mental anguish. If your definition of torture is just slight physical pain, it would be wrong to disinfect surfaces, take antibiotics, eat any sort of meat, etc. Thus, there must be more than the physical component to accurately define torture. "Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped?" Begging the question fallacy. This debate is about whether or not we should stop the deaths in the labs. Thus, it is not a valid point. "Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain?" As I have said before, the benefits we as a species get from animal testing far outweighs the harm we do to the animals we test on. You have no responded to my point about every medication on the market being the result of successful animal testing. "When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce." Your understanding is off. You mean to say that bacteria don't have brains. The nucleus of a single celled organism does not act as neural processing. However, this point is void. Bacteria respond to negative stimulus the same way we respond to pain. When we touch a hot stove, there are chemical signals telling us "this is bad, pull away". When bacteria encounter a destructive chemical, chemical transmitters and ion gates make it stop moving in that direction and turn around. "Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings?" Perhaps, but this really isn't helping your argument. You cannot show that animals feel the same way humans do, so why should we give up animal testing and the lives of so many other humans just because we feel we have an ethical duty towards animals who don't even know what ethics or morals are? "As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent." No tangent here. Plants and animals similarly respond to negative stimuli. Roots grow away from toxic substances, therefore, if we accept your definition, using weed killer is "torture" and should be stopped. My point is, "torture" must have both a physical and psychological component. Yes, animals may have feelings, but they don't understand the concept of torture. If a human is being tortured, half the pain comes from knowing that they can't escape the pain. Most lab animals simply keep trying to escape the pain. "As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab." Again, you have completely missed my point. You started talking about people trying to manufacture poisons and you have proven me correct. I made the hypothesis that you were skimming through my point about medications, saw the word "poison" and began to rant on something incoherently. I was right. You still don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to prove your point that the process of developing MEDICINE will eventually poison more and more animals. You have not done that. I was not talking about people who want to create poisons. I was talking about people who wanted to create working MEDICATIONS. Scientists developing a certain drug will test it on an animal. If it fails, they fix it, and test it on animals until they live. Hence, more testing leads to LESS overall deaths of lab animals, because the medication will have less and less side effects and a lower fatality rate. This completely disproves your point. "Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns?" This argument is completely irrelevant, a non sequitor. The fact that an animal displays emotions has nothing to do with whether or not is has human rights. You have failed to prove your point and thus, my argument still stands. "Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons." That's the only reason I need. Animal testing is going on and removing it would do a great deal of harm to our species. You are the one proposing the change, you think we should ban it. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you to develop an argument as to why we should ban animal testing DESPITE the terrible setback it would cause for our race. "I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough?" Non sequitor. This statement may bode well if you were a politician campaigning for the presidency, because it has a nice ring to it. But in debate, this makes absolutely no sense. "Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?" You have analyzed my argument poorly and have not made a single coherent point. --------- First and foremost, my point that animal testing is extremely beneficial to mankind has not been rebutted. Thus, we must take this as truth. Second, my opponent FAILED to show that animals deserve human rights. She only showed that animals have emotions. Third, my opponent is arguing that we should take measures to BAN animal testing. Thus, the burden of proof was on her to give an argument as to why we should sacrifice members of the human species for the sake of other animals. She has failed to do so. While it is regretful that animals die in the labs to produce our medications, the fact remains that animal testing is a necessity for our survival. There is no sufficient reason why we should sacrifice our survival for another animal's since non-human animals do not have and do not deserve human rights.

Kleptin

"believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species:" "Many have died FROM animal testing." I understand your argument. You are essentially saying "Animal testing goes wrong. Sometimes, we think it works in animals, but then we accidentally kill people". The problem is, this does not show that we should ban animal testing. Banning animal testing would result in MORE human deaths because then we won't have ANY way of testing a medication or procedure. So your argument is void. "Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion." Scientific evidence. Rabbits do not have the mental capacity to develop the concepts we know as freedom and pain. They just experience pain. And in this sense, torture would mean both a physical and mental anguish. If your definition of torture is just slight physical pain, it would be wrong to disinfect surfaces, take antibiotics, eat any sort of meat, etc. Thus, there must be more than the physical component to accurately define torture. "Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped?" Begging the question fallacy. This debate is about whether or not we should stop the deaths in the labs. Thus, it is not a valid point. "Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain?" As I have said before, the benefits we as a species get from animal testing far outweighs the harm we do to the animals we test on. You have no responded to my point about every medication on the market being the result of successful animal testing. "When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce." Your understanding is off. You mean to say that bacteria don't have brains. The nucleus of a single celled organism does not act as neural processing. However, this point is void. Bacteria respond to negative stimulus the same way we respond to pain. When we touch a hot stove, there are chemical signals telling us "this is bad, pull away". When bacteria encounter a destructive chemical, chemical transmitters and ion gates make it stop moving in that direction and turn around. "Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings?" Perhaps, but this really isn't helping your argument. You cannot show that animals feel the same way humans do, so why should we give up animal testing and the lives of so many other humans just because we feel we have an ethical duty towards animals who don't even know what ethics or morals are? "As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent." No tangent here. Plants and animals similarly respond to negative stimuli. Roots grow away from toxic substances, therefore, if we accept your definition, using weed killer is "torture" and should be stopped. My point is, "torture" must have both a physical and psychological component. Yes, animals may have feelings, but they don't understand the concept of torture. If a human is being tortured, half the pain comes from knowing that they can't escape the pain. Most lab animals simply keep trying to escape the pain. "As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab." Again, you have completely missed my point. You started talking about people trying to manufacture poisons and you have proven me correct. I made the hypothesis that you were skimming through my point about medications, saw the word "poison" and began to rant on something incoherently. I was right. You still don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to prove your point that the process of developing MEDICINE will eventually poison more and more animals. You have not done that. I was not talking about people who want to create poisons. I was talking about people who wanted to create working MEDICATIONS. Scientists developing a certain drug will test it on an animal. If it fails, they fix it, and test it on animals until they live. Hence, more testing leads to LESS overall deaths of lab animals, because the medication will have less and less side effects and a lower fatality rate. This completely disproves your point. "Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns?" This argument is completely irrelevant, a non sequitor. The fact that an animal displays emotions has nothing to do with whether or not is has human rights. You have failed to prove your point and thus, my argument still stands. "Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons." That's the only reason I need. Animal testing is going on and removing it would do a great deal of harm to our species. You are the one proposing the change, you think we should ban it. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you to develop an argument as to why we should ban animal testing DESPITE the terrible setback it would cause for our race. "I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough?" Non sequitor. This statement may bode well if you were a politician campaigning for the presidency, because it has a nice ring to it. But in debate, this makes absolutely no sense. "Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?" You have analyzed my argument poorly and have not made a single coherent point. --------- First and foremost, my point that animal testing is extremely beneficial to mankind has not been rebutted. Thus, we must take this as truth. Second, my opponent FAILED to show that animals deserve human rights. She only showed that animals have emotions. Third, my opponent is arguing that we should take measures to BAN animal testing. Thus, the burden of proof was on her to give an argument as to why we should sacrifice members of the human species for the sake of other animals. She has failed to do so. While it is regretful that animals die in the labs to produce our medications, the fact remains that animal testing is a necessity for our survival. There is no sufficient reason why we should sacrifice our survival for another animal's since non-human animals do not have and do not deserve human rights.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

I strongly disagree with animal testing. Animals are living creatures, and deserve a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want, but I am positive that they do not want to be tormented and abused for human-caused problems that modern day science could solve for us.

rawritsmichelle

I strongly disagree with animal testing. Animals are living creatures, and deserve a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want, but I am positive that they do not want to be tormented and abused for human-caused problems that modern day science could solve for us.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

"How are we to know whether they are happy or not?" I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony. "We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes." We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution. "Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting." Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals. "Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing." We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures.

rawritsmichelle

"How are we to know whether they are happy or not?" I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony. "We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes." We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution. "Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting." Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals. "Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing." We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures.

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." "Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals." Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant. "Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species." Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?

rawritsmichelle

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony." "Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals." Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant. "Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species." Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

I believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species: Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems. There are many, many other disasters within the animal testing experiments, and you say: "Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead." Many have died FROM animal testing. "A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured." Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion. "it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc." Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped? Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain? When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce. Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings? As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent. As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab. Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent is clearly trying to state that the superiors are meant to be living in high quality, and the less developed are in a "survival-of-the-fittest" world, and should face the fact that they will be manipulated for the more intelligent being's advantages. So clearly, those of us with any disadvantages would be picked off in this "evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world." Also, my opponent has also not said any major points to be used towards animal testing except that "it helps humans" and "animals are less sophisticated", etc etc (basically promoting the existence of the human race and questioning animal rights). Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons. I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough? Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?

rawritsmichelle

I believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species: Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems. There are many, many other disasters within the animal testing experiments, and you say: "Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead." Many have died FROM animal testing. "A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured." Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion. "it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc." Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped? Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain? When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce. Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings? As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening. Please do not go off on a tangent. As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab. Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you. When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions. You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent is clearly trying to state that the superiors are meant to be living in high quality, and the less developed are in a "survival-of-the-fittest" world, and should face the fact that they will be manipulated for the more intelligent being's advantages. So clearly, those of us with any disadvantages would be picked off in this "evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world." Also, my opponent has also not said any major points to be used towards animal testing except that "it helps humans" and "animals are less sophisticated", etc etc (basically promoting the existence of the human race and questioning animal rights). Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons. I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough? Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through" I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?

Science

Animal-Testing/3/

Animal testing is a cruel and should be abolished. Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Of course there are benefits, but why should innocent animals have to suffer? The answer is: an animal's life is considered less valuable than a human's. Why? Animals veritably do not have a lesser capacity for pain then humans. Although it may sound anthropomorphic, animals can suffer emotionally. When an animal is separated from its young it grieves. Of course an animal can suffer pain. Most animals have the same pain sensory receptors that humans do. So why are they considered less valuable than humans? Animals don't have a voice and can't represent themselves in our society. Because of that, they must accept whatever fate humans impose on them. If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies. This too, however, is unacceptable. I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated.

Paramountdesktop

Animal testing is a cruel and should be abolished. Apropos animal testing, what a deplorable procedure a vivisection is. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Of course there are benefits, but why should innocent animals have to suffer? The answer is: an animal's life is considered less valuable than a human's. Why? Animals veritably do not have a lesser capacity for pain then humans. Although it may sound anthropomorphic, animals can suffer emotionally. When an animal is separated from its young it grieves. Of course an animal can suffer pain. Most animals have the same pain sensory receptors that humans do. So why are they considered less valuable than humans? Animals don't have a voice and can't represent themselves in our society. Because of that, they must accept whatever fate humans impose on them. If anything, humans should be tested on because humans have the privilege of choice and can voluntarily volunteer their bodies. This too, however, is unacceptable. I propose that, with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, maybe a new solution could be innovated.

Health

Animal-Testing/5/

"So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision." Of course, because of the inherent nature of every species to protect their own species, the answer to that question is obvious: kill the fishes. But does that signify that the value of the animal's life is any less? No. It means that humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind I would also like to introduce scientific points to supplement my ethical points about why we should not experiment on animals. Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health. Examples: The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities. Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred. You claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims. Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr.Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans. The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination. Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer. Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports: "Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between <PHONE>, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25) The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years". Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals. 1. PCP is a sedative for chimps 2. Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives. 3. Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep. 4. Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses. 5. Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate. The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. Clearly, if you we are looking to make any progress in medicine, an entirely new approach is required. Human medicine should no longer be dependent on veterinary medicine. It is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species.

Paramountdesktop

"So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision." Of course, because of the inherent nature of every species to protect their own species, the answer to that question is obvious: kill the fishes. But does that signify that the value of the animal's life is any less? No. It means that humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind I would also like to introduce scientific points to supplement my ethical points about why we should not experiment on animals. Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health. Examples: The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities. Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred. You claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims. Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr.Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans. The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination. Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer. Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports: "Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25) The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years". Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals. 1. PCP is a sedative for chimps 2. Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives. 3. Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep. 4. Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses. 5. Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate. The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. Clearly, if you we are looking to make any progress in medicine, an entirely new approach is required. Human medicine should no longer be dependent on veterinary medicine. It is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species.

Health

Animal-Testing/5/

"Do you think that death will cause pain to a fish and its family that is even remotely close to the impact of the death of the average person? Even supposing that a fish would go through the same experiences of pain and grievance, which is impossible to prove at best, humans are much more social and productive creatures. Think about it this way: can you name one other animal that cares AT ALL for the well-being of another species or the environment, except for humans?" We only have knowledge about what humans can emotionally and physically experience BECAUSE WE ARE HUMANS. Think about the mutual relationships between animal species. They are are beneficial to each other, and, of course, that relationship is valued because of the benefits. Animals value their environment because it provides the habitat and resources they need to survive. Isn't it the same with humans? We care about the environment and other animals species because they either directly or indirectly benefit us. If the environment is impaired, that could mean harmful repercussions. If the food chain is disrupted, consequential extinction and overpopulation of species ensues. The following is information found from a reputable source. ________________________ Nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines. Drugs originate not from such tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design. Animal testing became mandatory following the thalidomide tragedy, but it has failed to prevent further disasters. Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and acute pain, is the biggest drug catastrophe in history. According to David Graham, associate director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety, an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans alone had heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal. Smaller drug disasters are commonplace, killing many thousands every year. New human-based tests could prevent many of these deaths. Microdose studies of volunteers reveal drug metabolism in the human body with accuracy. Yet regulators require animal studies, not microdose studies. We would all be safer without animal tests, which correctly predict drug side effects only between 5 and 25 per cent of the time, according to studies published in the scientific literature. Action must be taken now to prevent another Vioxx. -------- <URL>... __________________________ "Of course toxicology testing that assumes that all drugs safe for animals are safe for humans is dangerous. But incidents such as the Thalidomide tragedy would not have been PREVENTED by not testing the drugs on animals." Many more lives would have been saved if humans were initially tested on, instead of animals, before the product was released. We should not assume that medical products that have one effect on animals will have the same effect on humans or vice versa. That is why animals testing is not only futile but detrimental to humans.

Paramountdesktop

"Do you think that death will cause pain to a fish and its family that is even remotely close to the impact of the death of the average person? Even supposing that a fish would go through the same experiences of pain and grievance, which is impossible to prove at best, humans are much more social and productive creatures. Think about it this way: can you name one other animal that cares AT ALL for the well-being of another species or the environment, except for humans?" We only have knowledge about what humans can emotionally and physically experience BECAUSE WE ARE HUMANS. Think about the mutual relationships between animal species. They are are beneficial to each other, and, of course, that relationship is valued because of the benefits. Animals value their environment because it provides the habitat and resources they need to survive. Isn't it the same with humans? We care about the environment and other animals species because they either directly or indirectly benefit us. If the environment is impaired, that could mean harmful repercussions. If the food chain is disrupted, consequential extinction and overpopulation of species ensues. The following is information found from a reputable source. ________________________ Nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines. Drugs originate not from such tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design. Animal testing became mandatory following the thalidomide tragedy, but it has failed to prevent further disasters. Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and acute pain, is the biggest drug catastrophe in history. According to David Graham, associate director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety, an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans alone had heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal. Smaller drug disasters are commonplace, killing many thousands every year. New human-based tests could prevent many of these deaths. Microdose studies of volunteers reveal drug metabolism in the human body with accuracy. Yet regulators require animal studies, not microdose studies. We would all be safer without animal tests, which correctly predict drug side effects only between 5 and 25 per cent of the time, according to studies published in the scientific literature. Action must be taken now to prevent another Vioxx. -------- http://www.newscientist.com... __________________________ "Of course toxicology testing that assumes that all drugs safe for animals are safe for humans is dangerous. But incidents such as the Thalidomide tragedy would not have been PREVENTED by not testing the drugs on animals." Many more lives would have been saved if humans were initially tested on, instead of animals, before the product was released. We should not assume that medical products that have one effect on animals will have the same effect on humans or vice versa. That is why animals testing is not only futile but detrimental to humans.

Health

Animal-Testing/5/

As the science technology develops, there also have been a lot of experiments been made as well - one of them is animal testing, which is what this whole debate is about. About 2.5 million animals are dying per year in United Kingdom, and 4 million animals die each year in Korea, only to do the animal testing. Greetings everyone on debate.org and MickeyMouse(Jennifer). I am very honored to participate in this debate. This opposition team is against the motion of animal testing. In this round, I am going to talk about 3 arguments why I do not think animal testing is necessary, as well as what the governments has said. First I will going to rebut what the proposition team has said, and second I will then support my 3 arguments. First of all, she had talked about that by the animal testing we could save people's lives. Yes, we COULD save them, but there is not that much possibilities to do so, since it is not accurate. The result of the animal testing usually does not always apply to actual surgeries humans get. Well, I will be talking about it later on when arguing my points. Second of all, she has told us that we should not feel sad for the animal which are tested because we have already eaten them as food. However, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose for them - the ones eaten and the ones tested- are completely different. Sorry for the animals, but we kill the animals(here I mean to say animals eaten by the people such as, pigs, cows, chicken, etc.) because we HAVE to eat. We, people, cannot live properly without eating those meat, only eating the vegetables. In contrast, for the experiments, there are more chices to test with, which means animals does not really have to be used when doing the experiments. And, animals to be eaten get euthanasia(mercy killing) when they die, so we can say the case for feeling sad is different. Third of all, about the alternatives. The government team was being neglegent for the fact there IS another alternatives existing right now, which is, stem cell research. It is apparently true that it is about a human, whose right is more important than that of animal. On the other hand, since the stem cell research is very effective(since stem cell research is the test with actual human genes which applies almost 100%,right?), the scientists can spent the fewer cells(or we could just say 'lives;) for the successful surgery result. In this way, we can keep both rights and effectiveness by using this alternatives. Or else scientists can keep try doing the computer models, because the technology is keep developing. Now I would like to move on to my arguments why I believe animal testing has negative aspects rather than affirmative points. They are : 1. Animals has rights that even humans have to respect 2. Animal testing is not accurate 3. It can damage ecosystem, or the nature itself(a lot of animals get harmed a lot) Firstly, about the rights. To tell the truth, human is also part of the animals but having more developed brain, meaning that both they are the same. So why do we kill them without respecting them? It is true that they have less-developed skills since their brains are not that good. However, it can be true that they are able to think and feel. They can fear, they can be happy, they can be sad, and so on. Just because they cannot express what they feel, we should not do whatever we want to them. For example, there became such a big issue on the Internet in Korea and Japan because there were some photos about rabbits with no eyes, dogs with blooded body, monkeys with mouth of each side ripped off. In addition, the animals get tested when they are conscious. Just suppose that we are that animals being used for the experiments, then we would know how cruel that is. Secondly, it is about accuracy. As I said at the rebuttal, animal testing is not as accurate as we think. According to Seoul University, it has said that the possibility for usual scientists/doctors to make the result 100% successful takes too much time, and even they spent a lot of time, only about half(50%) are failed to get the successful result. I will now mention another example. Although Grass(which are plants) and humans have 50% same genes, look very different, even having different system in them. Besides, even though half of their genes are same, humans are alive and grass is abiotic ones. Then, even for the animals that gets tested-let's say about primates such as monkeys, which is the closest one to human-they have about 99% same genes in them. However, ladies and gentleman, the 1% that is different from them, can make the huge change. The primates body can reflex differently from how human's body reflexes, making the surgery result different. If it does so, it means that for the actual surgery that sick patients are taking, it can give harmful effects on them as well. Thirdly, I am going to talk about the nature problem. Not only do garbages and polluted gas harm the environment we all live in, but also animals getting damaged can harm it. One of them is about ecosystem. If people(here, doctors and scientists) get a lot of animals, there will be fewer and fewer animals consisting an ecosystem. Then, in a long term, the lack of animals number may give bad consequence for that ecosystem, causing other kinds of organisms to die out. Also, as I said at the first argument, there can be the animals without proper organs. For example, a rabbit which got surgery, its offsprings can get 6 legs because of animal testing. Then, the animals with weird appearance can increase a lot, which doesn't affect that good for the environment. In conclusion, because of the rights, accuracy, and the ecosystem, I am proud to oppose the motion strongly. Thank you..

KoreaRocks

As the science technology develops, there also have been a lot of experiments been made as well - one of them is animal testing, which is what this whole debate is about. About 2.5 million animals are dying per year in United Kingdom, and 4 million animals die each year in Korea, only to do the animal testing. Greetings everyone on debate.org and MickeyMouse(Jennifer). I am very honored to participate in this debate. This opposition team is against the motion of animal testing. In this round, I am going to talk about 3 arguments why I do not think animal testing is necessary, as well as what the governments has said. First I will going to rebut what the proposition team has said, and second I will then support my 3 arguments. First of all, she had talked about that by the animal testing we could save people's lives. Yes, we COULD save them, but there is not that much possibilities to do so, since it is not accurate. The result of the animal testing usually does not always apply to actual surgeries humans get. Well, I will be talking about it later on when arguing my points. Second of all, she has told us that we should not feel sad for the animal which are tested because we have already eaten them as food. However, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose for them - the ones eaten and the ones tested- are completely different. Sorry for the animals, but we kill the animals(here I mean to say animals eaten by the people such as, pigs, cows, chicken, etc.) because we HAVE to eat. We, people, cannot live properly without eating those meat, only eating the vegetables. In contrast, for the experiments, there are more chices to test with, which means animals does not really have to be used when doing the experiments. And, animals to be eaten get euthanasia(mercy killing) when they die, so we can say the case for feeling sad is different. Third of all, about the alternatives. The government team was being neglegent for the fact there IS another alternatives existing right now, which is, stem cell research. It is apparently true that it is about a human, whose right is more important than that of animal. On the other hand, since the stem cell research is very effective(since stem cell research is the test with actual human genes which applies almost 100%,right?), the scientists can spent the fewer cells(or we could just say 'lives;) for the successful surgery result. In this way, we can keep both rights and effectiveness by using this alternatives. Or else scientists can keep try doing the computer models, because the technology is keep developing. Now I would like to move on to my arguments why I believe animal testing has negative aspects rather than affirmative points. They are : 1. Animals has rights that even humans have to respect 2. Animal testing is not accurate 3. It can damage ecosystem, or the nature itself(a lot of animals get harmed a lot) Firstly, about the rights. To tell the truth, human is also part of the animals but having more developed brain, meaning that both they are the same. So why do we kill them without respecting them? It is true that they have less-developed skills since their brains are not that good. However, it can be true that they are able to think and feel. They can fear, they can be happy, they can be sad, and so on. Just because they cannot express what they feel, we should not do whatever we want to them. For example, there became such a big issue on the Internet in Korea and Japan because there were some photos about rabbits with no eyes, dogs with blooded body, monkeys with mouth of each side ripped off. In addition, the animals get tested when they are conscious. Just suppose that we are that animals being used for the experiments, then we would know how cruel that is. Secondly, it is about accuracy. As I said at the rebuttal, animal testing is not as accurate as we think. According to Seoul University, it has said that the possibility for usual scientists/doctors to make the result 100% successful takes too much time, and even they spent a lot of time, only about half(50%) are failed to get the successful result. I will now mention another example. Although Grass(which are plants) and humans have 50% same genes, look very different, even having different system in them. Besides, even though half of their genes are same, humans are alive and grass is abiotic ones. Then, even for the animals that gets tested-let's say about primates such as monkeys, which is the closest one to human-they have about 99% same genes in them. However, ladies and gentleman, the 1% that is different from them, can make the huge change. The primates body can reflex differently from how human's body reflexes, making the surgery result different. If it does so, it means that for the actual surgery that sick patients are taking, it can give harmful effects on them as well. Thirdly, I am going to talk about the nature problem. Not only do garbages and polluted gas harm the environment we all live in, but also animals getting damaged can harm it. One of them is about ecosystem. If people(here, doctors and scientists) get a lot of animals, there will be fewer and fewer animals consisting an ecosystem. Then, in a long term, the lack of animals number may give bad consequence for that ecosystem, causing other kinds of organisms to die out. Also, as I said at the first argument, there can be the animals without proper organs. For example, a rabbit which got surgery, its offsprings can get 6 legs because of animal testing. Then, the animals with weird appearance can increase a lot, which doesn't affect that good for the environment. In conclusion, because of the rights, accuracy, and the ecosystem, I am proud to oppose the motion strongly. Thank you..

Science

Animal-Testng/1/

To Jennifer(MickeyMouse) : I'm sorry that you did not get to finish your argument in time. You must have been very busy. Why don't you just put up a comment with your argument? Anyways, it was just nice debate which I've enjoyed very much. And you are such a good debater, aren't you? ^_^;; Well, for this round I will just summerize 3 arguments for the animal testing. First, it was about animals' rights that people have to respect. Second, it was about the inaccuracy of animal testing which can also harm the patients when having the actual surgery. Lastly, it was about the ecosystem and nature getting damaged because of animals getting harmed. In summary, because of these reasons, I am very proud to propose the motion strongly. Thank you very much, everyone.

KoreaRocks

To Jennifer(MickeyMouse) : I'm sorry that you did not get to finish your argument in time. You must have been very busy. Why don't you just put up a comment with your argument? Anyways, it was just nice debate which I've enjoyed very much. And you are such a good debater, aren't you? ^_^;; Well, for this round I will just summerize 3 arguments for the animal testing. First, it was about animals' rights that people have to respect. Second, it was about the inaccuracy of animal testing which can also harm the patients when having the actual surgery. Lastly, it was about the ecosystem and nature getting damaged because of animals getting harmed. In summary, because of these reasons, I am very proud to propose the motion strongly. Thank you very much, everyone.

Science

Animal-Testng/1/

Hello, guys. Hello, Jane. Well, have you heard about animal testing? Well, if you have, what do you think about it? Now, I'm going to talk about points that why I agree with animal testing. First, we can save people's lives with animal testing. Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits. Second, we always eat meat so why they always say that animal testing is wrong? Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research. Thirdly, Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing. Thank you.:)

Mickeymouse

Hello, guys. Hello, Jane. Well, have you heard about animal testing? Well, if you have, what do you think about it? Now, I'm going to talk about points that why I agree with animal testing. First, we can save people's lives with animal testing. Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits. Second, we always eat meat so why they always say that animal testing is wrong? Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research. Thirdly, Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing. Thank you.:)

Science

Animal-Testng/1/

Animal rights!!!!

TheQuestionMark

Animal rights!!!!

Arts

Animal-rights/64/

So what are we debating here? You never took a position or posted an argument.

lol101

So what are we debating here? You never took a position or posted an argument.

Arts

Animal-rights/64/

Due to the lack of clarification by Pro, I cannot present an argument in Round 2.

lol101

Due to the lack of clarification by Pro, I cannot present an argument in Round 2.

Arts

Animal-rights/64/

I agree that some animal testing is wrong, but doing test on animals for medicine helps humanity a great deal.

Hug_Plz

I agree that some animal testing is wrong, but doing test on animals for medicine helps humanity a great deal.

Health

Animal-testing-should-be-banned./3/

I actually plan on going into the medical field and tho i haven't started it yet, i have had to write numerous research papers in order to get accepted. Most every day medicine that has been used has tested on animals like flue shots, to diabetic medicine. Plus things like cosmetic test are completely overblown, the reality is that very little cosmetic test are actually done on animals.

Hug_Plz

I actually plan on going into the medical field and tho i haven't started it yet, i have had to write numerous research papers in order to get accepted. Most every day medicine that has been used has tested on animals like flue shots, to diabetic medicine. Plus things like cosmetic test are completely overblown, the reality is that very little cosmetic test are actually done on animals.

Health

Animal-testing-should-be-banned./3/

Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.

Hug_Plz

Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.

Health

Animal-testing-should-be-banned./3/

Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it. Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation: 1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't. 2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans. 3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses. 4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty. 5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss. 6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.

Jack212

Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it. Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation: 1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't. 2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans. 3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses. 4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty. 5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss. 6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.

Health

Animal-testing-should-be-kept-medical-reasons/1/

I disagree, many of them are trash. Regardless, the same argument defeats animal testing. Mice are living too. They have brains that think and feel. They can experience pain. Every mouse used in a laboratory is a mouse that doesn't get to live a full life. Those mice never get a choice. They can't refuse to be experimented on because they can't talk. Students can, however. They can understand the risks and make an informed decision. If some of them are dumb enough to take lethal drugs, that's their fault. Or more, it's a typical Friday night. 1. Scientists are idealistic. 2 and 3. I repeat, if they're dumb enough to take the drugs then it's their own fault. Besides, the world has enough lawyers. Your argument defeats basic animal rights. A living creature is harmed either way, so why not skip step 2 and test on consenting humans instead? I know plenty of students who would take drugs for chocolate bars. They'd just be annoyed that the drugs weren't IN the chocolate bars.

Jack212

I disagree, many of them are trash. Regardless, the same argument defeats animal testing. Mice are living too. They have brains that think and feel. They can experience pain. Every mouse used in a laboratory is a mouse that doesn't get to live a full life. Those mice never get a choice. They can't refuse to be experimented on because they can't talk. Students can, however. They can understand the risks and make an informed decision. If some of them are dumb enough to take lethal drugs, that's their fault. Or more, it's a typical Friday night. 1. Scientists are idealistic. 2 and 3. I repeat, if they're dumb enough to take the drugs then it's their own fault. Besides, the world has enough lawyers. Your argument defeats basic animal rights. A living creature is harmed either way, so why not skip step 2 and test on consenting humans instead? I know plenty of students who would take drugs for chocolate bars. They'd just be annoyed that the drugs weren't IN the chocolate bars.

Health

Animal-testing-should-be-kept-medical-reasons/1/

I affirm the resolution. "Resolved: 1Anthropocentrism ought to be 2valued above 3Biocentrism." This means the resolution is asking us to evaluate these two competing ethical theories in the terms of 4morality; ....... Thus the only value for the round that can efficiently achieve the question of the resolution is Morality. To do so we must determine the content of morality and how we come to a right or wrong decision. The capacity to do this makes things worthy of moral consideration. Any moral theory can only attribute moral value to rational beings therefore my criterion to uphold morality is respecting rational creatures. I offer the following justifications for 5rationality. J1. Simply stated Morality undoubtedly requires cognitive capabilities that allow reason thus rationale. To discern between right or wrong and determine a things morality we must consider details of the situation pit up for consideration. Thus reason/rationalization is imperative. J2. When considering action we automatically think about the consequences of said actions. We consider what will happen and why we want to do this or why we already have done this. The ability to have a reason for action indicates we can be held accountable. Things like hurricanes can not be given a lawyer or put on trial or put in jail for its destruction of a population. J3.When looking at morality itself we think about what means. The key word is that we have to think about it. Morality didn't appear out of ether. Morality requires a cognizant analysis therefore conceptualizing it requires rationality. The burden of the affirmative is to prove that Humans are the only rational creatures thus the only things worthy of moral consideration. C1. Humans are 6uniquely rational. A.Non-Human Animals 7physiology doesn't allow rationality. - -No 8beliefs+no concept= No rationality 1(Stich 1978) 9." we cannot attribute propositional attitudes to animals in any metaphysically robust sense, given our inability to attribute content to an animal's purported belief" On Stich's view, if attribution of belief to animals is understood purely instrumentally, then animals have beliefs. However, if attribution of beliefs to animals requires that we can accurately describe the content of those beliefs, then animals don't have beliefs Given the second sense of having belief, Stich argues that because 2 (Stich 1978, 23)10, "nothing we could discover would enable us to attribute content to an animal's belief" we are unable to make de dicto attributions to other species, and we cannot make de re attributions because this would violate the truth-preserving role of attribution. Hence we can make no attribution, and if we can't say what an animal's belief is about, it makes no sense to say that an animal has a belief. The worry here is similar to the worry about anthropomorphism; when we use our language to ascribe content to other species, we may be attributing to them more than is appropriate. Stich is concerned that when we say "Fido believes there is a meaty bone buried in the backyard" we are attributing to Fido concepts he cannot possibility have, concepts like "backyard" which are only comprehensible if one has corresponding concepts such as "property line", "house", "fence", and so on. Stich's argument can be formulated as: In order for something to have a belief, it must have a concept. In order to have a concept, one must have particular kinds of knowledge, including knowledge of how the concept relates to other concepts. Non-human animals don't have this knowledge. Therefore, non-human animals don't have beliefs. B.For non-human animals 10instinct precludes rationality. 12MIlikan1 It is true that nonhuman animals may learn or remember, may systematically store away, knowledge of the layout and of many significant features of the geography of the locales in which they live, knowledge of conditional probabilities among events significant for the animal, knowledge of hundreds of places in which they have cached food, knowledge of the social hierarchy of the group in which they live, and so forth, and that all of these things may be learned prior to use of this information to govern rewarding behavior. But these kinds of knowledge seem all to have been determined in advance by the experience of the species as useful in guiding practical activities of importance for survival. Moreover, this knowledge is typically called on only in contexts in which, according to the experience of the individual or the species, it has immediate uses of predetermined kinds. Meaning that all knowledge sought before some practical activity for animals is strictly a means of survival as opposed to a furtherance of the species itself. 13Millikan2 Motivation would always be directly grounded in perception, including perception of the animal's interior, of course, of its current needs as well as its current opportunities. Accordingly, Merlin Donald says of the behavior of apes: "complex as it is, [it] seems unreflective, concrete, and situation-bound. Even their uses of signing and their social behavior are immediate, short-term responses to the environment... ...Their lives are lived entirely in the present, as a series of concrete episodes..." (Donald 1991, p. 149) and "...the use of signing by apes is restricted to situations in which the eliciting stimulus, and the reward, are clearly specified and present, or at least very close to the ape at the time of signing" (p. 152). The pushmi-pullyu animal solves only problems posed by immediate perception. It does so by deciding from among possibilities currently presented in perception, or as known extensions from current perception, as in knowingly moving from a known place toward another place known to afford what the animal currently needs. Thus the behavior of non-human animal is completely situation bound and not that of reason. Every goal is achieved through motivation provided by the current needs not of a rational decision or some other mental inclination. Overall this means that Animal competencies are mainly adaptations restricted to a single goal as opposed to Human competencies that are domain-general and serve numerous goal. If instinct is what purely drives animals to be then rationality obviously doesn't exist for nonhuman animals. By attempting to value Biocentrism above Anthropocentrism the wheels of dehumanizing the human population begin to turn.

icey4321

I affirm the resolution. "Resolved: 1Anthropocentrism ought to be 2valued above 3Biocentrism." This means the resolution is asking us to evaluate these two competing ethical theories in the terms of 4morality; ……. Thus the only value for the round that can efficiently achieve the question of the resolution is Morality. To do so we must determine the content of morality and how we come to a right or wrong decision. The capacity to do this makes things worthy of moral consideration. Any moral theory can only attribute moral value to rational beings therefore my criterion to uphold morality is respecting rational creatures. I offer the following justifications for 5rationality. J1. Simply stated Morality undoubtedly requires cognitive capabilities that allow reason thus rationale. To discern between right or wrong and determine a things morality we must consider details of the situation pit up for consideration. Thus reason/rationalization is imperative. J2. When considering action we automatically think about the consequences of said actions. We consider what will happen and why we want to do this or why we already have done this. The ability to have a reason for action indicates we can be held accountable. Things like hurricanes can not be given a lawyer or put on trial or put in jail for its destruction of a population. J3.When looking at morality itself we think about what means. The key word is that we have to think about it. Morality didn't appear out of ether. Morality requires a cognizant analysis therefore conceptualizing it requires rationality. The burden of the affirmative is to prove that Humans are the only rational creatures thus the only things worthy of moral consideration. C1. Humans are 6uniquely rational. A.Non-Human Animals 7physiology doesn't allow rationality. - -No 8beliefs+no concept= No rationality 1(Stich 1978) 9." we cannot attribute propositional attitudes to animals in any metaphysically robust sense, given our inability to attribute content to an animal's purported belief" On Stich's view, if attribution of belief to animals is understood purely instrumentally, then animals have beliefs. However, if attribution of beliefs to animals requires that we can accurately describe the content of those beliefs, then animals don't have beliefs Given the second sense of having belief, Stich argues that because 2 (Stich 1978, 23)10, "nothing we could discover would enable us to attribute content to an animal's belief" we are unable to make de dicto attributions to other species, and we cannot make de re attributions because this would violate the truth-preserving role of attribution. Hence we can make no attribution, and if we can't say what an animal's belief is about, it makes no sense to say that an animal has a belief. The worry here is similar to the worry about anthropomorphism; when we use our language to ascribe content to other species, we may be attributing to them more than is appropriate. Stich is concerned that when we say "Fido believes there is a meaty bone buried in the backyard" we are attributing to Fido concepts he cannot possibility have, concepts like "backyard" which are only comprehensible if one has corresponding concepts such as "property line", "house", "fence", and so on. Stich's argument can be formulated as: In order for something to have a belief, it must have a concept. In order to have a concept, one must have particular kinds of knowledge, including knowledge of how the concept relates to other concepts. Non-human animals don't have this knowledge. Therefore, non-human animals don't have beliefs. B.For non-human animals 10instinct precludes rationality. 12MIlikan1 It is true that nonhuman animals may learn or remember, may systematically store away, knowledge of the layout and of many significant features of the geography of the locales in which they live, knowledge of conditional probabilities among events significant for the animal, knowledge of hundreds of places in which they have cached food, knowledge of the social hierarchy of the group in which they live, and so forth, and that all of these things may be learned prior to use of this information to govern rewarding behavior. But these kinds of knowledge seem all to have been determined in advance by the experience of the species as useful in guiding practical activities of importance for survival. Moreover, this knowledge is typically called on only in contexts in which, according to the experience of the individual or the species, it has immediate uses of predetermined kinds. Meaning that all knowledge sought before some practical activity for animals is strictly a means of survival as opposed to a furtherance of the species itself. 13Millikan2 Motivation would always be directly grounded in perception, including perception of the animal's interior, of course, of its current needs as well as its current opportunities. Accordingly, Merlin Donald says of the behavior of apes: "complex as it is, [it] seems unreflective, concrete, and situation-bound. Even their uses of signing and their social behavior are immediate, short-term responses to the environment... ...Their lives are lived entirely in the present, as a series of concrete episodes..." (Donald 1991, p. 149) and "...the use of signing by apes is restricted to situations in which the eliciting stimulus, and the reward, are clearly specified and present, or at least very close to the ape at the time of signing" (p. 152). The pushmi-pullyu animal solves only problems posed by immediate perception. It does so by deciding from among possibilities currently presented in perception, or as known extensions from current perception, as in knowingly moving from a known place toward another place known to afford what the animal currently needs. Thus the behavior of non-human animal is completely situation bound and not that of reason. Every goal is achieved through motivation provided by the current needs not of a rational decision or some other mental inclination. Overall this means that Animal competencies are mainly adaptations restricted to a single goal as opposed to Human competencies that are domain-general and serve numerous goal. If instinct is what purely drives animals to be then rationality obviously doesn't exist for nonhuman animals. By attempting to value Biocentrism above Anthropocentrism the wheels of dehumanizing the human population begin to turn.

Society

Anthropocentrism-ought-to-be-valued-above-biocentrism./1/

"_____Well non human animals are obviously different to the degree they can rationalize but I would disagree that all animals cannot rationalize. Quite simply mammals because they share a closer evolutionary link and are biologically closer to us must have some ability to show morality. Mammals have to cooperate in groups form strategies for survival. This requires basic thought and concepts. It may be primitive (not as complex or diverse) but it has to work. A group of wolves have morality because they have to share food, not kill each other, show love and affection to young and other members of the group. So it would be impossible for these groups to survive if they where to competitive amongst themselves and had not concepts of morality.______" Evolutionary closeness is rather inconclusive on the basis that the tiniest difference is enough to separate one from the other drastically. The slightest difference can account for drastic differences, in this case cognitive capabilities. Yes Animal and man share some of the most basic similarities especially in the physical sense where form fit function. But to say that our rationalizing capabilities are any where similar is barbaric seeing as how animals don't have rationality. Instead Instinct, which is not learned as according to my first source. If learning is not taking place, neither is a a thought process. Mammals need to roam in packs is as I said in my first Millikan card predetermined by the species. They were born into a pack and have instinctual inclinations to be surrounded by those like themselves. To say they have morality because of this is also an invalid conclusion of their 'strategy'. "________Ok, well this is well cited but the idea that ape behavior is only conducive to present needs is nonsense. Apes have to build friendships and improve relations with other members of there family. Even cultural traits (culture= traits passed down from generation to generation) such as different ways of opening nuts such as using sticks and twigs to rocks and then simply hands. There is now way that apes could have these primitive cultures if as Merlin thinks is completely in the present. Besides apes are 96% biologically similar, they inhibit many traits of human hunter gatherer tribes.______" You can not say that Apes have culture because it would be attributing to them concepts they can not have without a solid language basis nor the complexity of a brain like our own. This 'culture' my opponent claims they have is not culture at all but instinct once again (and you can reference my first source at the bottom of this page) that can also be passed along. Culture can not simply be the ability to get food in a way not normal to the being. It is actually these patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. On his 96% similar argument, what about the other four percent? His own source says "Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome." That is a vast difference and enough for rationality and cognitive capabilities to fall through the cracks. Despite this all, if we look at Animals in their entirety this one bit of grey area is irrevocably insignificant to concede that animals have rationale. "______Oh I am sure icey4321 that could possibly be the case! Now time for the refuting as I believe this is probably one of the most absurd claims from this anthropocentrist yet. You are correct when you say that instinct purely drives animals, because we are ANIMALS! If we weren't then why do we consume and reproduce and share many social and biological traits with mammals. Humans may have a more complex instinct but it is still instinct, as free will does not and has never existed. To have free will an organism would have to be completely isolated from all environmental, evolutionary and biological factors. What is so dehumanizing to accept that you are an animal what so wrong and immoral about that? The only people who accept anthropocentrism probably are creationists christian fundamentalists who want to objectify there views of ignorance over the scientific method which is supported by evidence._________" Actually I say that NONHUMAN ANIMALS are purely driven by instinct. They want to survive and reproduce and find the most qualified mate. They live day to day unlike us. I concede that we have instinct and are driven by it. But the fact is we have Instinct AND rationality AND thought process AND extremely complex logical thinking AND everything else that goes along with running a functioning and superior race of human civilization. Free will exist everywhere but when I want to act on a completely ridiculous or even logical matter like murder or the like I have the ability to think about it at all angles. Whether it be the consequence of jail time or getting blood on my shirt. You and I have the ability to think it through. Also you can say probably with no warrant to the only way I will acknowledge the Christian fundamentalists argument is by saying that even if they do support anthropocentrism it does not make it wrong. Seeing as how they are also humans with rationality. Moreover despite all the attacks on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold biocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is supreme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct <URL>... What this means for the round. 1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round. 2. There is no way to choose Biocentrism because my opponent fails to mention why we should. 3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative. So you can see that already you can vote AFF.

icey4321

"_____Well non human animals are obviously different to the degree they can rationalize but I would disagree that all animals cannot rationalize. Quite simply mammals because they share a closer evolutionary link and are biologically closer to us must have some ability to show morality. Mammals have to cooperate in groups form strategies for survival. This requires basic thought and concepts. It may be primitive (not as complex or diverse) but it has to work. A group of wolves have morality because they have to share food, not kill each other, show love and affection to young and other members of the group. So it would be impossible for these groups to survive if they where to competitive amongst themselves and had not concepts of morality.______" Evolutionary closeness is rather inconclusive on the basis that the tiniest difference is enough to separate one from the other drastically. The slightest difference can account for drastic differences, in this case cognitive capabilities. Yes Animal and man share some of the most basic similarities especially in the physical sense where form fit function. But to say that our rationalizing capabilities are any where similar is barbaric seeing as how animals don't have rationality. Instead Instinct, which is not learned as according to my first source. If learning is not taking place, neither is a a thought process. Mammals need to roam in packs is as I said in my first Millikan card predetermined by the species. They were born into a pack and have instinctual inclinations to be surrounded by those like themselves. To say they have morality because of this is also an invalid conclusion of their ‘strategy'. "________Ok, well this is well cited but the idea that ape behavior is only conducive to present needs is nonsense. Apes have to build friendships and improve relations with other members of there family. Even cultural traits (culture= traits passed down from generation to generation) such as different ways of opening nuts such as using sticks and twigs to rocks and then simply hands. There is now way that apes could have these primitive cultures if as Merlin thinks is completely in the present. Besides apes are 96% biologically similar, they inhibit many traits of human hunter gatherer tribes.______" You can not say that Apes have culture because it would be attributing to them concepts they can not have without a solid language basis nor the complexity of a brain like our own. This ‘culture' my opponent claims they have is not culture at all but instinct once again (and you can reference my first source at the bottom of this page) that can also be passed along. Culture can not simply be the ability to get food in a way not normal to the being. It is actually these patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. On his 96% similar argument, what about the other four percent? His own source says "Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome." That is a vast difference and enough for rationality and cognitive capabilities to fall through the cracks. Despite this all, if we look at Animals in their entirety this one bit of grey area is irrevocably insignificant to concede that animals have rationale. "______Oh I am sure icey4321 that could possibly be the case! Now time for the refuting as I believe this is probably one of the most absurd claims from this anthropocentrist yet. You are correct when you say that instinct purely drives animals, because we are ANIMALS! If we weren't then why do we consume and reproduce and share many social and biological traits with mammals. Humans may have a more complex instinct but it is still instinct, as free will does not and has never existed. To have free will an organism would have to be completely isolated from all environmental, evolutionary and biological factors. What is so dehumanizing to accept that you are an animal what so wrong and immoral about that? The only people who accept anthropocentrism probably are creationists christian fundamentalists who want to objectify there views of ignorance over the scientific method which is supported by evidence._________" Actually I say that NONHUMAN ANIMALS are purely driven by instinct. They want to survive and reproduce and find the most qualified mate. They live day to day unlike us. I concede that we have instinct and are driven by it. But the fact is we have Instinct AND rationality AND thought process AND extremely complex logical thinking AND everything else that goes along with running a functioning and superior race of human civilization. Free will exist everywhere but when I want to act on a completely ridiculous or even logical matter like murder or the like I have the ability to think about it at all angles. Whether it be the consequence of jail time or getting blood on my shirt. You and I have the ability to think it through. Also you can say probably with no warrant to the only way I will acknowledge the Christian fundamentalists argument is by saying that even if they do support anthropocentrism it does not make it wrong. Seeing as how they are also humans with rationality. Moreover despite all the attacks on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold biocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is supreme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct http://news.nationalgeographic.com... What this means for the round. 1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round. 2. There is no way to choose Biocentrism because my opponent fails to mention why we should. 3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative. So you can see that already you can vote AFF.

Society

Anthropocentrism-ought-to-be-valued-above-biocentrism./1/

Language has nothing to do with rationality. As I have said time and time again Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth. My ability to think about what I did, why I did it, and how im going to fix gives me rationality. And rationality is the only way to determine rationality. Language doesn't give rationality and I never said it did so for the record this argument in no way attacks my position. Moreover language is a way that we all communicate and interact and survive. Im not saying that is anyless true for animals or Chimps or whatever. But it is NOT the way to determine rationality. Nor a way for my opponent to try and uphold Biocentrism. _Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational"_ Not having morality doesn't make you wicked. Babies aren't seen as wicked though they have no morality yet. The key word is yet. They have the potential to be as well as all those other humans who may not have rationality for a pleura of reasons. So this argument is provocative word play that was drawn from an inaccurate conclusion of what I said--Once Again. _Note to reader*** (Be aware children, in this debate I have made fake quotes to what I presume is what a normal "Anthropocentrist" would think about in certain scenarios.ha Ha HA)***___ This statement only is enough to vote affirmative. By my opponents own admission all of his scenarios and quotes and essentially evidence holds no water whatsoever. _Next part to fully understand why apes have culture we must first understand what culture really IS. As I said before culture is nothing more than common social trait's small (such as style of eating food) to large (slavery, social structure). But apparently my opponent (lol I wonder why language makes it sound like I own you) has continued to disagree with the obvious to try to make culture sound better than it actually IS (and in most cases culture can be a negative). Just because what you define culture as doesn't fit the civilized standard is beside the POINT._ What's the relevance of this argument? It still doesn't refute how I firmly believe culture has no bearing on Morality. My only burden is to prove humans are uniquely rational therefore the only moral beings. Similarities could be down to the 99th percent and rationality would still be what evades our biological counterparts. _Ok Icey4321 I am not arguing that chimpanzees are more intelligent, nor am I using that quote to mislead you or other people into thinking that there is hardly any difference. I am trying to argue morality and I believe that your bias is blocking you from accepting that chimpanzees have culture, even as primitive as may seem to the observer. Well I strongly disagree with this. Though my opponent isn't arguing chimps and other animals are more intelligent he IS arguing that they have equal value by his egalitarian biocentric views. By saying that he is equating the life of a puppy dog with that of a child. And this is why that ethical system is flawed. AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!)._ Why cant I? Maybe you cant wake up in the morning a discern out of all the reasons not to run outside naked. But me and a majority of the human population can. And if there is some type of illness that prevents you from looking at the pro's and con's all I can say is that I don't handle the little grey areas that are one in a million or not a majority. _{TRUE OR FAILS} Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do!_ They eat to survive just like I do BUT that is natural and one of those things that we have to do no matter what. The Worm couldn't decide not to eat. He doesn't even have a grasp on why he needs to. _Does just because humans have more complex ways (different) in getting food like hunting gathering digesting in a huge stomachs, fighting for food, sharing and distributing food which leads to social systems like hunter gathers, kindship relations, monarchs, fascists, etc. Then when we look at the worm all he has to do is put his mouth in the ground and decompose food. Now because the system in getting food for the human is more complex does this than make the human free of nature or what is called "free will", No it's just another process with the same undelying mechanisms Consumption and Reproduction is what it comes down TO (Not god not civilization, not even capitalism)._ The complexity of a thing has noting to do with anything. Rationalizing actually isn't really complicated. It can happen in a split second without us realizing. There are though cognitive capabilities that our brains have that allow us to rationalize. Okay, A lion can run faster than me, it doesn't make him better. I am smarter and have more intellect than a doggy but that doesn't make me better. The only way to show my superiority to the animal and plant kind is by my moral status. The only way to determine my moral status is by my ability to discern the content of morality. If animals don't know what it is how can they have it? Its not like a stomach. The have stomachs and probably don't grasp the concept but they still have it. Morality is not like that. It is a concept that must have been thought up by HUMANS. Animals could probably careless. _____Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is SUPREME<3 ie, CIVILIZED RATIONAL(even though this view in most cases is irrational).______ Its wonderful how my opponent just mentioned civilized rationale and I have not the slightest idea how it shows biocentrism superior. Does my opponent even mention Biocentrism once in his case? He has argued defensively (And failed I might add) but never offensively. So moreover my value still stands because it is the only way to discern these two ethical theories. All of my justifications for morality are intact for my opponent never attacked them. My burden was proven by the fact my opponent didn't attack my contentions that prove it true. Which are follows NO BELIEFS as supported by Stephen Stich and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and INSTINCT IN PLACE OF RATIONALITY as supported by Ruth Millikan and Merlin Donald. The only thing that my opponents position will lead to is dehumanizing the human population as denying us our moral worth which is imperative to being human. What this means for the round. _____1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.______ You have none so what is this argument even pertaining to. ________2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.____ HaHa funny play on words. Childish but funny nonetheless. In my first speech I give the impact of Biocentrism dehumanizing the population by taking away the only thing that really divides us from the rest and makes us superior. That sure sounds like a reason to vote AFF. ____3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative._____ Okayy do you realize what you just said? You know your neg right? That means you argue for Biocentrism as the resolution indicates. So yes this is all evidence for the AFF lol. Obviously readers you can vote Aff because my Opponent has no idea what he's arguing for anyways.

icey4321

Language has nothing to do with rationality. As I have said time and time again Rationality is what determines if a thing has any moral worth. My ability to think about what I did, why I did it, and how im going to fix gives me rationality. And rationality is the only way to determine rationality. Language doesn't give rationality and I never said it did so for the record this argument in no way attacks my position. Moreover language is a way that we all communicate and interact and survive. Im not saying that is anyless true for animals or Chimps or whatever. But it is NOT the way to determine rationality. Nor a way for my opponent to try and uphold Biocentrism. _Lets see what next, ok she basically rambles on about "Morality". "OH NO! The apes cant have morality, they are wicked and evil, irrational"_ Not having morality doesn't make you wicked. Babies aren't seen as wicked though they have no morality yet. The key word is yet. They have the potential to be as well as all those other humans who may not have rationality for a pleura of reasons. So this argument is provocative word play that was drawn from an inaccurate conclusion of what I said—Once Again. _Note to reader*** (Be aware children, in this debate I have made fake quotes to what I presume is what a normal "Anthropocentrist" would think about in certain scenarios.ha Ha HA)***___ This statement only is enough to vote affirmative. By my opponents own admission all of his scenarios and quotes and essentially evidence holds no water whatsoever. _Next part to fully understand why apes have culture we must first understand what culture really IS. As I said before culture is nothing more than common social trait's small (such as style of eating food) to large (slavery, social structure). But apparently my opponent (lol I wonder why language makes it sound like I own you) has continued to disagree with the obvious to try to make culture sound better than it actually IS (and in most cases culture can be a negative). Just because what you define culture as doesn't fit the civilized standard is beside the POINT._ What's the relevance of this argument? It still doesn't refute how I firmly believe culture has no bearing on Morality. My only burden is to prove humans are uniquely rational therefore the only moral beings. Similarities could be down to the 99th percent and rationality would still be what evades our biological counterparts. _Ok Icey4321 I am not arguing that chimpanzees are more intelligent, nor am I using that quote to mislead you or other people into thinking that there is hardly any difference. I am trying to argue morality and I believe that your bias is blocking you from accepting that chimpanzees have culture, even as primitive as may seem to the observer. Well I strongly disagree with this. Though my opponent isn't arguing chimps and other animals are more intelligent he IS arguing that they have equal value by his egalitarian biocentric views. By saying that he is equating the life of a puppy dog with that of a child. And this is why that ethical system is flawed. AHH free will , "I can look at it at all the angles" (no you cant!)._ Why cant I? Maybe you cant wake up in the morning a discern out of all the reasons not to run outside naked. But me and a majority of the human population can. And if there is some type of illness that prevents you from looking at the pro's and con's all I can say is that I don't handle the little grey areas that are one in a million or not a majority. _{TRUE OR FAILS} Do humans have to eat? Yes they do. Do worms have to eat? Yes they do!_ They eat to survive just like I do BUT that is natural and one of those things that we have to do no matter what. The Worm couldn't decide not to eat. He doesn't even have a grasp on why he needs to. _Does just because humans have more complex ways (different) in getting food like hunting gathering digesting in a huge stomachs, fighting for food, sharing and distributing food which leads to social systems like hunter gathers, kindship relations, monarchs, fascists, etc. Then when we look at the worm all he has to do is put his mouth in the ground and decompose food. Now because the system in getting food for the human is more complex does this than make the human free of nature or what is called "free will", No it's just another process with the same undelying mechanisms Consumption and Reproduction is what it comes down TO (Not god not civilization, not even capitalism)._ The complexity of a thing has noting to do with anything. Rationalizing actually isn't really complicated. It can happen in a split second without us realizing. There are though cognitive capabilities that our brains have that allow us to rationalize. Okay, A lion can run faster than me, it doesn't make him better. I am smarter and have more intellect than a doggy but that doesn't make me better. The only way to show my superiority to the animal and plant kind is by my moral status. The only way to determine my moral status is by my ability to discern the content of morality. If animals don't know what it is how can they have it? Its not like a stomach. The have stomachs and probably don't grasp the concept but they still have it. Morality is not like that. It is a concept that must have been thought up by HUMANS. Animals could probably careless. _____Moreover despite all the assassination attempts on my case which I have successfully defeated my opponent has failed to uphold anthropocentrism as the topic of debate indicates. Therefore my opponent has no case and my position is SUPREME<3 ie, CIVILIZED RATIONAL(even though this view in most cases is irrational).______ Its wonderful how my opponent just mentioned civilized rationale and I have not the slightest idea how it shows biocentrism superior. Does my opponent even mention Biocentrism once in his case? He has argued defensively (And failed I might add) but never offensively. So moreover my value still stands because it is the only way to discern these two ethical theories. All of my justifications for morality are intact for my opponent never attacked them. My burden was proven by the fact my opponent didn't attack my contentions that prove it true. Which are follows NO BELIEFS as supported by Stephen Stich and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and INSTINCT IN PLACE OF RATIONALITY as supported by Ruth Millikan and Merlin Donald. The only thing that my opponents position will lead to is dehumanizing the human population as denying us our moral worth which is imperative to being human. What this means for the round. _____1. My value, criterion and justifications, and contention all are the only way to determine the round.______ You have none so what is this argument even pertaining to. ________2. There is no way to choose Anthropofacism because my opponent fails to mention why we should.____ HaHa funny play on words. Childish but funny nonetheless. In my first speech I give the impact of Biocentrism dehumanizing the population by taking away the only thing that really divides us from the rest and makes us superior. That sure sounds like a reason to vote AFF. ____3. I successfully refuted all arguments on my case and turned my opponents evidence into evidence for the affirmative._____ Okayy do you realize what you just said? You know your neg right? That means you argue for Biocentrism as the resolution indicates. So yes this is all evidence for the AFF lol. Obviously readers you can vote Aff because my Opponent has no idea what he's arguing for anyways.

Society

Anthropocentrism-ought-to-be-valued-above-biocentrism./1/

Let me just start off by saying that I'm quite intrigued by your choice of resolution, so this should be an interesting debate. First of all, I'd like to point out that, overall, you give absolutely no reason that apathy is not an ideology; you say it is 'beyond your understanding' why people consider apathy (defined by merriam-webster's as "lack of interest or concern") to be an ideology (defined by merriam-webster's as "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"); from that comment, you extend your argument into what you even admit are Ad Hominem attacks; this means 2 things: 1. You attack people who are apathetic, not the idea that apathy can be an ideology. 2. You claim that people who are apathetic are narrow-minded, but in attacking these people relentlessly, you yourself are being extremely narrow-minded, just the other side of the coin, so to speakl so really, your argument is setting up a giant double standard: ("If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae.") While I may not agree with apathy, that doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology; it would be as hard to change their outlook on society and the human race as it would be to change yours. And honestly, society hasn't been declining for ONLY the past 3 years. There are plenty of times where society has been dismal at best. The Dark Ages, for example. So, to close out my opening argument, it comes down to this: Either you vote CON, because we have to accept that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining social bonds, and because my opponent doesn't actually defend his side of the resolution, or you can vote PRO, which advocates slaughter of anyone caught not being appropriately passionate about society (sounds familiar...), and provides you, the voters, with a lot of Ad Hominem attacks (which he admits puts a lot of flaws in his argument). So, CON = Acceptance of truth, PRO = Personal attacks and social "cleansing". I'll let you guys decide. Until then, I await my opponent's next argument.

Cody_Franklin

Let me just start off by saying that I'm quite intrigued by your choice of resolution, so this should be an interesting debate. First of all, I'd like to point out that, overall, you give absolutely no reason that apathy is not an ideology; you say it is 'beyond your understanding' why people consider apathy (defined by merriam-webster's as "lack of interest or concern") to be an ideology (defined by merriam-webster's as "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"); from that comment, you extend your argument into what you even admit are Ad Hominem attacks; this means 2 things: 1. You attack people who are apathetic, not the idea that apathy can be an ideology. 2. You claim that people who are apathetic are narrow-minded, but in attacking these people relentlessly, you yourself are being extremely narrow-minded, just the other side of the coin, so to speakl so really, your argument is setting up a giant double standard: ("If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae.") While I may not agree with apathy, that doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology; it would be as hard to change their outlook on society and the human race as it would be to change yours. And honestly, society hasn't been declining for ONLY the past 3 years. There are plenty of times where society has been dismal at best. The Dark Ages, for example. So, to close out my opening argument, it comes down to this: Either you vote CON, because we have to accept that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining social bonds, and because my opponent doesn't actually defend his side of the resolution, or you can vote PRO, which advocates slaughter of anyone caught not being appropriately passionate about society (sounds familiar...), and provides you, the voters, with a lot of Ad Hominem attacks (which he admits puts a lot of flaws in his argument). So, CON = Acceptance of truth, PRO = Personal attacks and social "cleansing". I'll let you guys decide. Until then, I await my opponent's next argument.

Society

Apathy-is-not-a-f-ideology/1/

My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so.

Cody_Franklin

My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so.

Society

Apathy-is-not-a-f-ideology/1/

It's fine, I can understand that real life takes precedence; still, you make it sound like debate is insignificant when you say 'I do have much better things [to do]...'; I like this activity very much, however. And while I am arguing with you, I am debating for the voters, since I am trying to convince THEM, not you; if I could convince you, there would be no point in debating. So please, first of all, don't call me arrogant, and don't insult the judges; that inherently makes your yourself arrogant for assigning us such labels; second of all, this is yet another batch of personal attacks that you are using; finally, this personal assault, voters, takes no place in the round. I simply thought that I ought to defend my integrity as a person and as a debater by covering this. Now then, I am arguing against the idea that apathy is not an ideology; obviously, poking holes in your side of the case is going to help me accomplish that goal, especially since you have not answered any of the arguments which I have presented. Also, it is not difficult to look up an internet definition of terms for the purpose of debate, so, again, please refrain from using personal attacks, especially when I am only attempting to better the quality of this debate. Additionally, I don't think that being apathetic degrades the Moral Worth of humankind; regardless of the ideology of a person, every human life has Moral Worth. And, since this is a question, I will answer no; I am not scared that there are hundreds of have lack of concern for life; especially when the number, as you claim, is only in the hundreds, compared to the billions of other people on earth. Finally, again with the Ad Hominem attacks, I don't look down my nose at you at all; it is because I respect you and this topic that I took the CON side of this debate; also, I do not believe that my argument is stuck up; you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that to me in a debate round is both irrelevant to the topic and outright disrespectful; do not forget that you are the one who posted this topic; you should have been prepared for any potential arguments. And, as far as this debate is concerned, I do not think that it is 'pointless' at all. Through debate, we learn, we grow, we gain a lot; if you want to insult this debate, especially on a topic that you created, please, feel free, but when you find some relevant arguments, please post those also. So, voters, you can vote on either my (CON's) unrefuted arguments in my last post, or you can vote on the constant personal attacks and outright insults that my opponent makes. If you need a copy of my last post for reference... "My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so." For the sake of logic, reason, and the spirit of debate, please give this round to the CON.

Cody_Franklin

It's fine, I can understand that real life takes precedence; still, you make it sound like debate is insignificant when you say 'I do have much better things [to do]...'; I like this activity very much, however. And while I am arguing with you, I am debating for the voters, since I am trying to convince THEM, not you; if I could convince you, there would be no point in debating. So please, first of all, don't call me arrogant, and don't insult the judges; that inherently makes your yourself arrogant for assigning us such labels; second of all, this is yet another batch of personal attacks that you are using; finally, this personal assault, voters, takes no place in the round. I simply thought that I ought to defend my integrity as a person and as a debater by covering this. Now then, I am arguing against the idea that apathy is not an ideology; obviously, poking holes in your side of the case is going to help me accomplish that goal, especially since you have not answered any of the arguments which I have presented. Also, it is not difficult to look up an internet definition of terms for the purpose of debate, so, again, please refrain from using personal attacks, especially when I am only attempting to better the quality of this debate. Additionally, I don't think that being apathetic degrades the Moral Worth of humankind; regardless of the ideology of a person, every human life has Moral Worth. And, since this is a question, I will answer no; I am not scared that there are hundreds of have lack of concern for life; especially when the number, as you claim, is only in the hundreds, compared to the billions of other people on earth. Finally, again with the Ad Hominem attacks, I don't look down my nose at you at all; it is because I respect you and this topic that I took the CON side of this debate; also, I do not believe that my argument is stuck up; you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that to me in a debate round is both irrelevant to the topic and outright disrespectful; do not forget that you are the one who posted this topic; you should have been prepared for any potential arguments. And, as far as this debate is concerned, I do not think that it is 'pointless' at all. Through debate, we learn, we grow, we gain a lot; if you want to insult this debate, especially on a topic that you created, please, feel free, but when you find some relevant arguments, please post those also. So, voters, you can vote on either my (CON's) unrefuted arguments in my last post, or you can vote on the constant personal attacks and outright insults that my opponent makes. If you need a copy of my last post for reference... "My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so." For the sake of logic, reason, and the spirit of debate, please give this round to the CON.

Society

Apathy-is-not-a-f-ideology/1/

Why anyone would feel apathy is an ideology is beyond my understanding. For the last 3 years I have watched a decline in society for which there are many reasons, apathy being one of them. If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae. I know that my opening argument is flawed with Ad Hominem (attacking the individual) but I think that it is the case that this is a very much individual argument for which different people have different opinions and requires personal defence.

Josh-on-life

Why anyone would feel apathy is an ideology is beyond my understanding. For the last 3 years I have watched a decline in society for which there are many reasons, apathy being one of them. If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae. I know that my opening argument is flawed with Ad Hominem (attacking the individual) but I think that it is the case that this is a very much individual argument for which different people have different opinions and requires personal defence.

Society

Apathy-is-not-a-f-ideology/1/

Sorry for my forfit, revision took up my time and i do have much better things than sitting arguing at my PC with randomers, not that i dont love to argue with you :/ An again sorry who are you talking to? Your argumet is with me stop only refering to me, talk to me. An argument where you present your claim to whoever is reading isnt an argument i can agree with give me your arguments not the sad bastards judging us. It makes you come across as arrogent. Anyway from your two argument that you would much rather pick hole in my veiws than take a side. you are Con which says to me that you stand by Apathy as an ideology. Dont you think that degrades you as a human being. Doesnt it scare you that there are hundreds who, as you say from your oh so facinating deffinitions:/ (which it seems youve put far to much time into reaserarching), have a lack of consern for life. I find it sad that in light of the fact that religion is a load of very old b****cks that people lack enthusiasm for their one and only existance in this world. I know you may like to look down your nose at me and would more than happily type up your stuck up arrgument and click the subbmit button and feel a great sence of satisfaction, (for watever screwed up reason), than search you own soal and realise just how pointless this all is in the light of everything

Josh-on-life

Sorry for my forfit, revision took up my time and i do have much better things than sitting arguing at my PC with randomers, not that i dont love to argue with you :/ An again sorry who are you talking to? Your argumet is with me stop only refering to me, talk to me. An argument where you present your claim to whoever is reading isnt an argument i can agree with give me your arguments not the sad bastards judging us. It makes you come across as arrogent. Anyway from your two argument that you would much rather pick hole in my veiws than take a side. you are Con which says to me that you stand by Apathy as an ideology. Dont you think that degrades you as a human being. Doesnt it scare you that there are hundreds who, as you say from your oh so facinating deffinitions:/ (which it seems youve put far to much time into reaserarching), have a lack of consern for life. I find it sad that in light of the fact that religion is a load of very old b****cks that people lack enthusiasm for their one and only existance in this world. I know you may like to look down your nose at me and would more than happily type up your stuck up arrgument and click the subbmit button and feel a great sence of satisfaction, (for watever screwed up reason), than search you own soal and realise just how pointless this all is in the light of everything

Society

Apathy-is-not-a-f-ideology/1/

First off maybe I misinterpreted the reason why John Galt abandoned the generator, but as I understood it he gave it up because he didn't want the looters to have it. He wanted to bring them down and it would have taken longer if they had the generator. And I don't think that a law should be passed to not allow people to burn their flags. My own personal view is that burning an American flag is a horrible act, but I don't want to force anyone either way. As far as social security goes, you got me. I was flying through the survey thing and just checked it. I am going to change it right now. With the abortion thing, my own personal belief is that it is wrong. If a woman gets pregnant it is because of her own actions (The only exceptions are rape and incest) and her and her mate have to deal with the consequences. Would you argue the same point if it were a child that was already born, and then the parents decided that they did not want to take care of it anymore? Should that child live for itself? As for my Christian faith, I do not ask others to live for me and I do not live for them. It is my individual choice to believe what I believe, which I do not feel is incompatible with the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged. I may not be as strictly dedicated to the ideals of Atlas Shrugged as you understand them, but I believe that I should earn my own way, keep what I earn, and use it to make myself happy. As you know in Atlas Shrugged, to sacrifice is a terrible thing. I do not feel that my belief in God, my decision to not burn the American flag, and my and my future spouse's decision to not have an abortion are sacrifices because they are what will satisfy my happiness. I like to view man as a heroic being, and that is why I chose John Galt as my user name. (Also......I just really like the book!)

johngalt

First off maybe I misinterpreted the reason why John Galt abandoned the generator, but as I understood it he gave it up because he didn't want the looters to have it. He wanted to bring them down and it would have taken longer if they had the generator. And I don't think that a law should be passed to not allow people to burn their flags. My own personal view is that burning an American flag is a horrible act, but I don't want to force anyone either way. As far as social security goes, you got me. I was flying through the survey thing and just checked it. I am going to change it right now. With the abortion thing, my own personal belief is that it is wrong. If a woman gets pregnant it is because of her own actions (The only exceptions are rape and incest) and her and her mate have to deal with the consequences. Would you argue the same point if it were a child that was already born, and then the parents decided that they did not want to take care of it anymore? Should that child live for itself? As for my Christian faith, I do not ask others to live for me and I do not live for them. It is my individual choice to believe what I believe, which I do not feel is incompatible with the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged. I may not be as strictly dedicated to the ideals of Atlas Shrugged as you understand them, but I believe that I should earn my own way, keep what I earn, and use it to make myself happy. As you know in Atlas Shrugged, to sacrifice is a terrible thing. I do not feel that my belief in God, my decision to not burn the American flag, and my and my future spouse's decision to not have an abortion are sacrifices because they are what will satisfy my happiness. I like to view man as a heroic being, and that is why I chose John Galt as my user name. (Also……I just really like the book!)

Politics

Appropriating-as-your-username-the-full-name-of-a-fictional-person-with-whom-you-obviously-disagree./1/

I didn't realize that about the flag burning so that issue is resolved as well. However I believe that my belief that God created the world is not one that I base on emotion or feelings. My reasoning is that there are to many things in this world that cannot be explained beyond any doubt by any theory. Whether my belief and reasoning is correct or yours is correct is not something that can really be debated because nobody knows for certain if god exists. Therefore I will respectfully concede this debate. Thank you for helping me straighten out some of these issues.

johngalt

I didn't realize that about the flag burning so that issue is resolved as well. However I believe that my belief that God created the world is not one that I base on emotion or feelings. My reasoning is that there are to many things in this world that cannot be explained beyond any doubt by any theory. Whether my belief and reasoning is correct or yours is correct is not something that can really be debated because nobody knows for certain if god exists. Therefore I will respectfully concede this debate. Thank you for helping me straighten out some of these issues.

Politics

Appropriating-as-your-username-the-full-name-of-a-fictional-person-with-whom-you-obviously-disagree./1/

I cannot prove without question that God exists, and you cannot prove without question that God does not exist. That is why I don't think it can be resolved. I guess that my reasoning is this.... Being that I "buy in" to the idea that there is a God and that he created the earth, for me to go to heaven there are certain things that I believe I need to do or not do. It is my interest and my interest alone for me to go to heaven. I do not live for the sake of others or ask others to live for me. If I do something to help another, it isn't that I am sacrificing for the other person. I am doing it for me to get what I value. Therefore, it is not a sacrifice. I don't think that there is a contradiction between the main ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged and being a Christian. I believe that it all depends on what the individual values.

johngalt

I cannot prove without question that God exists, and you cannot prove without question that God does not exist. That is why I don't think it can be resolved. I guess that my reasoning is this…. Being that I "buy in" to the idea that there is a God and that he created the earth, for me to go to heaven there are certain things that I believe I need to do or not do. It is my interest and my interest alone for me to go to heaven. I do not live for the sake of others or ask others to live for me. If I do something to help another, it isn't that I am sacrificing for the other person. I am doing it for me to get what I value. Therefore, it is not a sacrifice. I don't think that there is a contradiction between the main ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged and being a Christian. I believe that it all depends on what the individual values.

Politics

Appropriating-as-your-username-the-full-name-of-a-fictional-person-with-whom-you-obviously-disagree./1/

Personal aquariums are bad for the environment simply because they are a worthless waste of time. All the materials, energy, and thought that go into creating these aquariums and breeding these fish are wasted. These fish have to be cared for very specifically, when transporting these fish the Ph must me monitored, salinity, temperature, there must be proper filtration, lots and lots of time and energy is wasted on these fish. Until there comes a time that Aquariums have zero environmental impact, they will be bad for the environment.

JLPicard

Personal aquariums are bad for the environment simply because they are a worthless waste of time. All the materials, energy, and thought that go into creating these aquariums and breeding these fish are wasted. These fish have to be cared for very specifically, when transporting these fish the Ph must me monitored, salinity, temperature, there must be proper filtration, lots and lots of time and energy is wasted on these fish. Until there comes a time that Aquariums have zero environmental impact, they will be bad for the environment.

Miscellaneous

Aquarium-Hobby/1/

Whether or not you enjoy it is irrelevant, the fact is that is is not good for the environment. If you want a hobby that is good for the environment you should plant trees, because your hobby is bad for the environment. This is best demonstrated by asking a simple question. What do Aquariums consume? Aquariums consume energy, raw materials and time. and What do Aquariums produce? Pollution, and joy to those who harbor them. This is not a hobby that is good for the environment.

JLPicard

Whether or not you enjoy it is irrelevant, the fact is that is is not good for the environment. If you want a hobby that is good for the environment you should plant trees, because your hobby is bad for the environment. This is best demonstrated by asking a simple question. What do Aquariums consume? Aquariums consume energy, raw materials and time. and What do Aquariums produce? Pollution, and joy to those who harbor them. This is not a hobby that is good for the environment.

Miscellaneous

Aquarium-Hobby/1/

Debate over if the Aquarium Hobby is good for the envirmoment. First Round is for acception only I own 10 Aquariums so bring it on!

bettabreeder

Debate over if the Aquarium Hobby is good for the envirmoment. First Round is for acception only I own 10 Aquariums so bring it on!

Miscellaneous

Aquarium-Hobby/1/

About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years. With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5.

bettabreeder

About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years. With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5.

Miscellaneous

Aquarium-Hobby/1/

Us aquarist enjoy it. Like some people like to draw some people breed fish and keep fish. Because of most of our fish being bred the Salinity, Ph and tempurture doesn't need to be monitered as it used to be. Is that a bad thing that people enjoy spending time with fish and enjoying caring for them. An organazation came out Called C.A.R.E.S Preservation to help aquarist and other people learn about fish in the hobby that are endargered or exinct in the wild. Having Cares is giving Enviromental impact to all species. I would accually rather keep a threatned species in my aquarium because people out there don't give a crap about that fishes well being as the hobby might be its last resort. <URL>...

bettabreeder

Us aquarist enjoy it. Like some people like to draw some people breed fish and keep fish. Because of most of our fish being bred the Salinity, Ph and tempurture doesn't need to be monitered as it used to be. Is that a bad thing that people enjoy spending time with fish and enjoying caring for them. An organazation came out Called C.A.R.E.S Preservation to help aquarist and other people learn about fish in the hobby that are endargered or exinct in the wild. Having Cares is giving Enviromental impact to all species. I would accually rather keep a threatned species in my aquarium because people out there don't give a crap about that fishes well being as the hobby might be its last resort. http://www.carespreservation.com...

Miscellaneous

Aquarium-Hobby/1/

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now. If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational. if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.

ViceRegent

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now. If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational. if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/6/

So, you are going with you know truth from fiction via you senses. Okay, for that is all you have. Tell us how you know your senses are valid? How do you know Occam's Razor is a way to know truth? Your senses did not tell you this, which defeats refutes your own sense-base epistemology. I accept your concession of defeat. How do you know "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Again, your senses did not tell you this, so you are again refuting your own epistemology. And how do you what an "extraordinary claim" is? And this is actually nonsense, for any claim merely requires sufficient evidence, no matter what you think of the claim. Which of your senses told you that your senses perceive in extreme detail, whatever that is, what is a complex fabrication, that it has mistakes, etc. And which of your senses told you detail is less likely to be a fabrication? If you cannot tell me which sense, you have again refuted your own view. And to verify your senses with the supposed senses of others cannot be done without using your senses. To verify your senses with your senses is to irrational beg the question. I am still waiting on your rational method of knowing truth from fiction. Good luck. Your first effort was a bust.

ViceRegent

So, you are going with you know truth from fiction via you senses. Okay, for that is all you have. Tell us how you know your senses are valid? How do you know Occam's Razor is a way to know truth? Your senses did not tell you this, which defeats refutes your own sense-base epistemology. I accept your concession of defeat. How do you know "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Again, your senses did not tell you this, so you are again refuting your own epistemology. And how do you what an "extraordinary claim" is? And this is actually nonsense, for any claim merely requires sufficient evidence, no matter what you think of the claim. Which of your senses told you that your senses perceive in extreme detail, whatever that is, what is a complex fabrication, that it has mistakes, etc. And which of your senses told you detail is less likely to be a fabrication? If you cannot tell me which sense, you have again refuted your own view. And to verify your senses with the supposed senses of others cannot be done without using your senses. To verify your senses with your senses is to irrational beg the question. I am still waiting on your rational method of knowing truth from fiction. Good luck. Your first effort was a bust.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/6/

I could not care less about your truth claims unless and until you can provide me a rational method by which you can know truth from fiction. You said you use your senses, but then proceeded to refute your own epistemology by relying on claims that are not based on senses. So I ask you again, how do you know your senses are valid? If you fail to answer again, you lose the debate.

ViceRegent

I could not care less about your truth claims unless and until you can provide me a rational method by which you can know truth from fiction. You said you use your senses, but then proceeded to refute your own epistemology by relying on claims that are not based on senses. So I ask you again, how do you know your senses are valid? If you fail to answer again, you lose the debate.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/6/

As this tool has still not told me how he knows his senses are valid or that Occan's Razor and the Extradinary Claims arguments are true, he loses the debate. Moving on.

ViceRegent

As this tool has still not told me how he knows his senses are valid or that Occan's Razor and the Extradinary Claims arguments are true, he loses the debate. Moving on.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/6/

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now. If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational. if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.

ViceRegent

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction? Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now. If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational. if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/9/

Actually, no, you were supposed to tell me by why method you rationally know fact from fiction.

ViceRegent

Actually, no, you were supposed to tell me by why method you rationally know fact from fiction.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/9/

Is this tool so dense that he cannot understand a simple Q? I did not ask him to tell me what he thinks is real, but by what methodology he rationally knows reality from delusion. I will give him one more chance to answer.

ViceRegent

Is this tool so dense that he cannot understand a simple Q? I did not ask him to tell me what he thinks is real, but by what methodology he rationally knows reality from delusion. I will give him one more chance to answer.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/9/

And this loser fails the test and loses the debate, but I do appreciate this fool proving atheists are mentally ill.

ViceRegent

And this loser fails the test and loses the debate, but I do appreciate this fool proving atheists are mentally ill.

Philosophy

Are-Atheists-Able-to-Know-Reality-from-Delusion/9/

Many people say video games aren't a sport, well actually they are. Just because they aren't a physical sport doesn't mean they are not a sport, they are an eSport. You have to specify on what type of sport before you say video games are not a sport.

Eblank3218

Many people say video games aren't a sport, well actually they are. Just because they aren't a physical sport doesn't mean they are not a sport, they are an eSport. You have to specify on what type of sport before you say video games are not a sport.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-A-Sport/2/

The definition of sport from Merriam Webster's dictionary is to play in a happy and lively way. Well you play video games, and you are playing sometimes intense depending on the game, and gamers are always happy when they play unless it is a game they do not like.

Eblank3218

The definition of sport from Merriam Webster's dictionary is to play in a happy and lively way. Well you play video games, and you are playing sometimes intense depending on the game, and gamers are always happy when they play unless it is a game they do not like.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-A-Sport/2/

no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.

softball_32

no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-A-Sport/2/

Ok if ur going to say that video games is a sport that is sad because they are clearly not

softball_32

Ok if ur going to say that video games is a sport that is sad because they are clearly not

Technology

Are-Video-Games-A-Sport/2/

<URL>... I hope in the future u will get up off the couch and play some real sports. The real deal is better trust me, u will feel way better win u hit ur first home run or when u get ur first swoosh in a basketball game. I was 9 yrs old win i hit my first home run and i was 12 when i got my first swoosh ( i just started basketball ), but go out for sports!!!!

softball_32

https://www.youtube.com... I hope in the future u will get up off the couch and play some real sports. The real deal is better trust me, u will feel way better win u hit ur first home run or when u get ur first swoosh in a basketball game. I was 9 yrs old win i hit my first home run and i was 12 when i got my first swoosh ( i just started basketball ), but go out for sports!!!!

Technology

Are-Video-Games-A-Sport/2/

Many people say that video games are not a sport for various reasons. However as one might say video games are simply killing others, I could say football is running from one side of a field to another. Both are simplistic and overall each person on each side have no knowledge on each topic. On the football side there are rules, maneuvers, constant training and effort gone into it. The same goes for a popular game series going by the name of Call of Duty. Call of Duty just like in real war requires much tactics, aim practice, and constant training and effort. The only reason people think otherwise is because this is a game. The game and the fact it requires little physical strength means nothing, which is what others don't understand. Imagine how much more hand eye coordination, reflexes, spotting eye, etc. that you don't have. All this debate is is asking what will win in a fight over physical strength and mental strength. Mental strength requires extreme limitations to posses. When I play a fighting game I am watching everything. I watch a timer, health bar, enemies health bar, a meter, and my team mates while at all the same time watching an enemy attack and using my reflex to input combos using a stick and 6 buttons without even looking at my hands. With football it is look forward, run, and throw. Even if there is more video games also take more concentration and strategical thinking. With games like Dota (or a multiplayer online battle arena) you need to time precise attacks on creeps to gain money to buy items to give you and your team the edge as well as use team work, such as your teammate hits a stun where you shoot the finishing blow. So much time and effort put into gamers time yet they are viewed by many as a disgrace, lazy, etc. I can't wait to hear what one of you will put so i can prove it wrong.

Minizor

Many people say that video games are not a sport for various reasons. However as one might say video games are simply killing others, I could say football is running from one side of a field to another. Both are simplistic and overall each person on each side have no knowledge on each topic. On the football side there are rules, maneuvers, constant training and effort gone into it. The same goes for a popular game series going by the name of Call of Duty. Call of Duty just like in real war requires much tactics, aim practice, and constant training and effort. The only reason people think otherwise is because this is a game. The game and the fact it requires little physical strength means nothing, which is what others don't understand. Imagine how much more hand eye coordination, reflexes, spotting eye, etc. that you don't have. All this debate is is asking what will win in a fight over physical strength and mental strength. Mental strength requires extreme limitations to posses. When I play a fighting game I am watching everything. I watch a timer, health bar, enemies health bar, a meter, and my team mates while at all the same time watching an enemy attack and using my reflex to input combos using a stick and 6 buttons without even looking at my hands. With football it is look forward, run, and throw. Even if there is more video games also take more concentration and strategical thinking. With games like Dota (or a multiplayer online battle arena) you need to time precise attacks on creeps to gain money to buy items to give you and your team the edge as well as use team work, such as your teammate hits a stun where you shoot the finishing blow. So much time and effort put into gamers time yet they are viewed by many as a disgrace, lazy, etc. I can't wait to hear what one of you will put so i can prove it wrong.

Entertainment

Are-Video-Games-a-Sport/1/

Please do not post your arguments yet, just accept. I can't post the argument at the moment, I will post tomorrow.

TheGoldMustache

Please do not post your arguments yet, just accept. I can't post the argument at the moment, I will post tomorrow.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. Young people in general are more likely to be gamers " 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. This article from ""Psychology Today" gives some information that they gained from their studies. "Christopher Ferguson and his colleagues, at Texas A&M; International University, which will soon be published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.[1] Ferguson's group followed a sample of 165 young people over a three-year period, assessing their video game play and various other aspects of their lives. They found no relationship at all between exposure to violent video games and real-world violence committed by these young people. They did find, however, that their subjects' real-world violence was rather strongly predicted by the real-world violence they were exposed to in their daily lives. Kids whose parents or friends were violent were, no surprise, significantly more likely to engage in real violence themselves than were kids whose parents and friends were not violent. Video gaming, no matter how "violent" the game, had no effect at all. Ferguson's study and many others lead to the conclusion that, while real-world violence causes more real-world violence, pretend violence does not." Today, worldwide, hundreds of millions of people play video games. Most of those players are perfectly normal people, and nothing newsworthy ever happens to them. Only a very small percentage of them are killers, or violent. Every day, some video gamer somewhere does something terrible or experiences something terrible, but so will one of the hundreds of millions of people who don't play video games. And, according to the Department of Justice, violence by juveniles is at an all time low.

TheGoldMustache

According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. Young people in general are more likely to be gamers " 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. This article from ""Psychology Today" gives some information that they gained from their studies. "Christopher Ferguson and his colleagues, at Texas A&M; International University, which will soon be published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.[1] Ferguson's group followed a sample of 165 young people over a three-year period, assessing their video game play and various other aspects of their lives. They found no relationship at all between exposure to violent video games and real-world violence committed by these young people. They did find, however, that their subjects' real-world violence was rather strongly predicted by the real-world violence they were exposed to in their daily lives. Kids whose parents or friends were violent were, no surprise, significantly more likely to engage in real violence themselves than were kids whose parents and friends were not violent. Video gaming, no matter how "violent" the game, had no effect at all. Ferguson's study and many others lead to the conclusion that, while real-world violence causes more real-world violence, pretend violence does not." Today, worldwide, hundreds of millions of people play video games. Most of those players are perfectly normal people, and nothing newsworthy ever happens to them. Only a very small percentage of them are killers, or violent. Every day, some video gamer somewhere does something terrible or experiences something terrible, but so will one of the hundreds of millions of people who don't play video games. And, according to the Department of Justice, violence by juveniles is at an all time low.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

Violence in juveniles (up to 18) is at the lowest it has ever been as of 2010. The highest point was in 1994, and has been steadily decreasing, even though video game sales are increasing. Please note that this study is for America, Canada, and the UK. And, they tested gamers and non players, and found no difference in their behavior, anger, violence, etc. Brain scans showed no difference. Then, another group of gamers were talked to by an actor. The man told them about "increased silence due to video games", and that group had higher levels of violence. It essentially created a placebo effect. Playing video games doesn't make you violent; people telling you video games make you violent, make you violent.

TheGoldMustache

Violence in juveniles (up to 18) is at the lowest it has ever been as of 2010. The highest point was in 1994, and has been steadily decreasing, even though video game sales are increasing. Please note that this study is for America, Canada, and the UK. And, they tested gamers and non players, and found no difference in their behavior, anger, violence, etc. Brain scans showed no difference. Then, another group of gamers were talked to by an actor. The man told them about "increased silence due to video games", and that group had higher levels of violence. It essentially created a placebo effect. Playing video games doesn't make you violent; people telling you video games make you violent, make you violent.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

I accept the debate. As the Pro, I affirm the resolution. Framework I have the Burden of Proof in showing that video games increase violence. However, I do not have to prove ALL video games increase violence, just some of them. Definitions Since Con presented no definition, I will set definition. Violent:using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Good luck to Con

kingkd

I accept the debate. As the Pro, I affirm the resolution. Framework I have the Burden of Proof in showing that video games increase violence. However, I do not have to prove ALL video games increase violence, just some of them. Definitions Since Con presented no definition, I will set definition. Violent:using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Good luck to Con

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

Before I make my speech I would just like to note that correlation does not equal causation for both sides. Also, my case is solely about Violent Video Games (VVG), not any other type. Contention 1: Alters brain violently Journal of Experimental Social Psychology shows that " Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior." <URL>... "A meta-analysis reported in the journal Psychological Science in 2001 noted several common conclusions among previous video-game studies, notably reports of a "fight or flight" response in children playing video games. Their heart rates and blood pressures increased, and their adrenal glands released adrenaline. Real-life violence triggers the same physiological responses. The analysis concluded that the studies "clearly support the hypothesis that exposure to violent video games poses a public-health threat to children and youths." Other physical links were revealed in a 2006 study at the Indiana University School of Medicine, this time regarding brain activity. Researchers looked at the brains of 44 kids immediately after they played video games. Half of them played a nonviolent game, and half played a violent game. The brain scans of the violent-game group showed increased activity in the amygdala , which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. These increases didn't show up on the scans of the nonviolent-game group." IAs shown by this Contention, VVGs alter the brain to increase aggression and decrease inhibitions, resulting in violent behaviors. Contention 2: Makes people believe violence is acceptable "The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games." This study shows direct causation effect between violent video games and violence happening. Christopher Barlett, Richard Harris, and Callie Bruey, "The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Oct. 2007 This study found that it takes 5 minutes for aggressive behavior and thoughts to return to normal. The study found that more blood led to much more violence. Making people, even children believe that violence is an acceptable answer is only the first step in creating a violent society. Contention 3: Violence against Women Tracy Dietz, "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior," Sex Roles , 1998 <URL>... This study found that 21% of videogames involved violence against women. They found that " Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape." Specifically, women are targeted and violence towards them increases Refutation Just because violent crime has decreased does not mean that violent video games are causing this. Violent video games increase aggression and violence, however, other cultural factors have lowered violence such as awareness and Internet. Conclusion Why does this violence occur? VVGs teach people that violence is an accpetable way to solve conflict. What really makes VVGs worse than say, violent TV? According to Elizabeth Carlll in "Chronicle of Higher Education", " Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. " Tracy Dietz found that " Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished." The difference between violent videogames and violent TV is that violent videogames have the player as the killer who gets rewarded for killing. Therefore an affirmation is necessary.

kingkd

Before I make my speech I would just like to note that correlation does not equal causation for both sides. Also, my case is solely about Violent Video Games (VVG), not any other type. Contention 1: Alters brain violently Journal of Experimental Social Psychology shows that " Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior." http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... "A meta-analysis reported in the journal Psychological Science in 2001 noted several common conclusions among previous video-game studies, notably reports of a "fight or flight" response in children playing video games. Their heart rates and blood pressures increased, and their adrenal glands released adrenaline. Real-life violence triggers the same physiological responses. The analysis concluded that the studies "clearly support the hypothesis that exposure to violent video games poses a public-health threat to children and youths." Other physical links were revealed in a 2006 study at the Indiana University School of Medicine, this time regarding brain activity. Researchers looked at the brains of 44 kids immediately after they played video games. Half of them played a nonviolent game, and half played a violent game. The brain scans of the violent-game group showed increased activity in the amygdala , which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. These increases didn't show up on the scans of the nonviolent-game group." IAs shown by this Contention, VVGs alter the brain to increase aggression and decrease inhibitions, resulting in violent behaviors. Contention 2: Makes people believe violence is acceptable "The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games." This study shows direct causation effect between violent video games and violence happening. Christopher Barlett, Richard Harris, and Callie Bruey, "The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Oct. 2007 This study found that it takes 5 minutes for aggressive behavior and thoughts to return to normal. The study found that more blood led to much more violence. Making people, even children believe that violence is an acceptable answer is only the first step in creating a violent society. Contention 3: Violence against Women Tracy Dietz, "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior," Sex Roles , 1998 http://videogames.procon.org... This study found that 21% of videogames involved violence against women. They found that " Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape." Specifically, women are targeted and violence towards them increases Refutation Just because violent crime has decreased does not mean that violent video games are causing this. Violent video games increase aggression and violence, however, other cultural factors have lowered violence such as awareness and Internet. Conclusion Why does this violence occur? VVGs teach people that violence is an accpetable way to solve conflict. What really makes VVGs worse than say, violent TV? According to Elizabeth Carlll in "Chronicle of Higher Education", " Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. " Tracy Dietz found that " Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished." The difference between violent videogames and violent TV is that violent videogames have the player as the killer who gets rewarded for killing. Therefore an affirmation is necessary.

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

Observation: As the Pro, I do not have to prove a significant increase in violence. If I can prove on case in which video games increased violence, I win as the resolution says increasing, not increasing significantly. Rebuttal <URL>... "In 1997, 16-year-old Evan Ramsey brought a shotgun to his Alaska high school and shot four people, killing two. He played a lot of the sci-fi horror game "Doom," in which you have to shoot a character many times before he dies. Ramsey later explained he was surprised to find that rule did not apply in real life [source: Jaccarino]. Also in 1997, a 14-year-old killed multiple people at his high school in Paducah, Ky. He'd played a lot of "Doom," too, along with the fight-to-the-death game "Mortal Kombat," two favorites of the Columbine teens, as well [source:Jaccarino]. Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people at a summer campin Norway 2011, said he trained for his attack using the war game "Call of Duty," one also favored by Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary[source: Jaccarino]." My opponent has not suffciently refuted my arguments that videogames increase violence. My studies outweigh his one study because I provided numerous studies and reasoning behind them. Violent video games increase violence as they tell children that violence is an acceptable anser to problems. They reward people for killing. As the examples above show, without violent video games, the killers would not have been murderers. They were negatively influenced by violent videogames. Case extension My case still stands. He never refuted the fact that 60% of boys who played M rated games beat up someone while only 39% of boys who didn't play those games beat up someone. Yes, juvenile violence has on net decreased, BUT THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF VIDEOGAMES. Correlation does not equal causation. So his correlation of violence decreasing is due to other factors, and my opponent cannot prove that videogames are responsible for this decrease. My many studies show that the brain is altered emotionally and agressively with decreased inhibitions. Remember, I do not have to prove a large increase in violence. This resolution is not on balance, but if an increase is shown. If my opponent cannot refute the fact that videogames caused people to kill, I win automatically. My study shows that violent video games contributed to violence. They are not the sole reason, for sure, but they contribute to an increase. Remember that Anders Breivik used VVGs to train to kill people. If there were no VVGs, Breivik could not have trained and therefore would not have killed so many people. Yes, some would have died, but only someone with the practice to murder would've killed 77 people. VVGs are worse then other forms of violent media because the player is the killer and associates with them. They are rewarded for violent and killing behaviors. Thank you and I urge a Pro ballot

kingkd

Observation: As the Pro, I do not have to prove a significant increase in violence. If I can prove on case in which video games increased violence, I win as the resolution says increasing, not increasing significantly. Rebuttal http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... "In 1997, 16-year-old Evan Ramsey brought a shotgun to his Alaska high school and shot four people, killing two. He played a lot of the sci-fi horror game "Doom," in which you have to shoot a character many times before he dies. Ramsey later explained he was surprised to find that rule did not apply in real life [source: Jaccarino]. Also in 1997, a 14-year-old killed multiple people at his high school in Paducah, Ky. He'd played a lot of "Doom," too, along with the fight-to-the-death game "Mortal Kombat," two favorites of the Columbine teens, as well [source:Jaccarino]. Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people at a summer campin Norway 2011, said he trained for his attack using the war game "Call of Duty," one also favored by Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary[source: Jaccarino]." My opponent has not suffciently refuted my arguments that videogames increase violence. My studies outweigh his one study because I provided numerous studies and reasoning behind them. Violent video games increase violence as they tell children that violence is an acceptable anser to problems. They reward people for killing. As the examples above show, without violent video games, the killers would not have been murderers. They were negatively influenced by violent videogames. Case extension My case still stands. He never refuted the fact that 60% of boys who played M rated games beat up someone while only 39% of boys who didn't play those games beat up someone. Yes, juvenile violence has on net decreased, BUT THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF VIDEOGAMES. Correlation does not equal causation. So his correlation of violence decreasing is due to other factors, and my opponent cannot prove that videogames are responsible for this decrease. My many studies show that the brain is altered emotionally and agressively with decreased inhibitions. Remember, I do not have to prove a large increase in violence. This resolution is not on balance, but if an increase is shown. If my opponent cannot refute the fact that videogames caused people to kill, I win automatically. My study shows that violent video games contributed to violence. They are not the sole reason, for sure, but they contribute to an increase. Remember that Anders Breivik used VVGs to train to kill people. If there were no VVGs, Breivik could not have trained and therefore would not have killed so many people. Yes, some would have died, but only someone with the practice to murder would've killed 77 people. VVGs are worse then other forms of violent media because the player is the killer and associates with them. They are rewarded for violent and killing behaviors. Thank you and I urge a Pro ballot

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

Con has forfeited the round. It was interesting . Shame

kingkd

Con has forfeited the round. It was interesting . Shame

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

vote pro, con could not respond

kingkd

vote pro, con could not respond

Technology

Are-Video-Games-increasing-violence/1/

My stand on this topic is that yes, humans are the most intelligent lif forms on the planet. This is because to date, no other life form has been proven to be smarter that their human counterparts.I look forward to hearing my challengers reply.

Then

My stand on this topic is that yes, humans are the most intelligent lif forms on the planet. This is because to date, no other life form has been proven to be smarter that their human counterparts.I look forward to hearing my challengers reply.

Science

Are-humans-the-most-intelligent-life-forms-on-the-planet/1/

My opponent is also making his argument out of ignorance. Surely if there really were aliens on earth, why else would they be here but to collect intelligence for a invasion however, scientists have theorised that aliens have been visiting Earth for millions of years surely they would have gathered enough information to launch an invasion force. However, they have not as my opponent claims that aliens are still hiding on Earth. Why is this so? This is so because humans are so intelligent that we are constantly improving our technologies and thus, aliens have no choice but to continue surveying our planet. Now, let me move on to if there are no aliens on earth.So far there have not been any solid proof that there are aliens on Earth.My opponent will have to prove that there really is solid proof of aliens on Earth before going about his argument.If there are no aliens on Earth, then humans really are the most intelligent life forms on Earth.After all, we have learnt how to evolve faster than any other animal on the planet, turning from the hunted into the hunter. With that, I hand it over to my opponent to defend his stance.

Then

My opponent is also making his argument out of ignorance. Surely if there really were aliens on earth, why else would they be here but to collect intelligence for a invasion however, scientists have theorised that aliens have been visiting Earth for millions of years surely they would have gathered enough information to launch an invasion force. However, they have not as my opponent claims that aliens are still hiding on Earth. Why is this so? This is so because humans are so intelligent that we are constantly improving our technologies and thus, aliens have no choice but to continue surveying our planet. Now, let me move on to if there are no aliens on earth.So far there have not been any solid proof that there are aliens on Earth.My opponent will have to prove that there really is solid proof of aliens on Earth before going about his argument.If there are no aliens on Earth, then humans really are the most intelligent life forms on Earth.After all, we have learnt how to evolve faster than any other animal on the planet, turning from the hunted into the hunter. With that, I hand it over to my opponent to defend his stance.

Science

Are-humans-the-most-intelligent-life-forms-on-the-planet/1/

Well, if aliens really do exist, why have they not shown themselves? After doing some further research, I have discovered that since 10,000 years ago, there have been sightings of aliens on earth! This was proven by carvings discovered on cave walls which show images of alien craft. However, why have aliens not tried to communicate with us? This may be because they do not have a proper language. This would prove that aliens are not smarter than us in the fact that although they have well-developed technologies, they are not smart enough to invent a proper language. At this stage of the debate, I find it fitting to remind my opponent that I was talking about humans being the most intelligent life forms on the Earth and not in the universe. So, technically, as aliens do not originate from Earth, they cannot be considered to be a life form on Earth. Thus, humans are the most intelligent life forms on the Earth. With that I rest my case.

Then

Well, if aliens really do exist, why have they not shown themselves? After doing some further research, I have discovered that since 10,000 years ago, there have been sightings of aliens on earth! This was proven by carvings discovered on cave walls which show images of alien craft. However, why have aliens not tried to communicate with us? This may be because they do not have a proper language. This would prove that aliens are not smarter than us in the fact that although they have well-developed technologies, they are not smart enough to invent a proper language. At this stage of the debate, I find it fitting to remind my opponent that I was talking about humans being the most intelligent life forms on the Earth and not in the universe. So, technically, as aliens do not originate from Earth, they cannot be considered to be a life form on Earth. Thus, humans are the most intelligent life forms on the Earth. With that I rest my case.

Science

Are-humans-the-most-intelligent-life-forms-on-the-planet/1/