Judge: Will Scott (James Madison University)
Resolution: RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should ban all testing that requires the use of animals.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at N/A by Sara Miller
Christopher Anderegg, M.D., Ph.D., Kathy Archibald, B.Sc., Jarrod Bailey, Ph.D. , Murry J. Cohen, M.D., Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D., John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C.
Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2006
The Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) is a non-profit health advocacy organization composed of medical professionals and scientists who identify and promote efficient, reliable and cost-effective research methods. The MRMC focuses exclusively on the scientific merits of different research approaches, even though some undoubtedly raise serious and important ethical concerns. MRMC-sponsored activities include research, publishing and student education.
Link - http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf
Dr. Robert Sharpe, Scientific Director of International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals, 2003
http://www.iaapea.com/101.php this particular one is number 38
Rollin, Bernard E., January 2013 (Qualifications: Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Animal Sciences, Professor of Biomedical Sciences and a bioethicist at Colorado State University)
4) " The Ethics of Medical Testing. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Animal Experiments: Overview." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.effects of doses of a potential drug).
Posted at N/A by Anca Dogaroiu
The Oxford Handbook of The Economics of the Pharmaceutical Industry, edited by Patricia M. Danzon and Sean Nicholson, Chapter 3, by Sean Nicholson
Genesis, Chapter 1, http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp
Posted at N/A by Sara Miller
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at N/A by Will Scott
|Category||Sara Miller||Anca Dogaroiu|
|Use of evidence:||3.3||3.5|
|Coherence of arguments:||2.8||4.6|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2.7||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||2.8||4.6|
|Comments:||Constructive- Your evidence is strong. I think you need to be making an argument that animals feeling pain is morally equal to humans feeling pain, otherwise animal suffering is a question of cost-benefit analysis. If you make this argument the debate is much easier for me because you give yourself another level of argumentation on the value of nonhuman life. Your argument about the ineffectiveness of animal testing is strong.
Rebuttals- It seems you choose to concede that I should approach the debate from a Biblical worldview. I think using Noah's Arc as the basis for your argument about how God feels about animal testing is an untenable position when God ordered animal sacrifices to protect people from harm (the consequences of the sins of the Jews were covered by the animal sacrifices). You try to make a value to life emotional appeal, but it comes really late and has little to back it up, especially when you are conceding a Biblical framework for the round. You are impassioned in your last speech, but you are still not answering the key point that human lives are key. Your point about humans not caring about the consequences is answered back in the rebuttal by the inevitability of human domination, meaning that humans will not care even if testing is illegal.
|Constructive- Your argument that there must be a test on a living being is key to animal treatment sets up the arguments that come later and shut down any alternative that doesn't include testing on living beings. Your functional regulation counterplan is a strong position that opens the door to allowing some testing while decreasing suffering.
I think using the Bible is not the strongest argument for an ethnocentric approach to animal testing. If you're going to use this strategy again, you should look at the points I wrote on your opponent's rebuttal.
Rebuttal- Brilliant catch on the double bind argument. You catch the idea that this round has taken on a religious tone and turn this against your opponent. A clever gambit in the constructive, but brilliant execution in the rebuttal. Your tradeoff argument is strong when you're winning that human lives are intrinsically more valuable in God's eyes. Good job to carry through the ethical reform counterplan as your opponent is not answering back the power of reform to solve for some of the ethical flaws in current testing.
The decision is for the Opposition: Anca Dogaroiu
Reason for Decision:
Both sides concede a Biblical worldview, and I find that the opposition is controlling the value to life debate under that framework, winning that there is a stronger value to life for the human as opposed to the nonhuman. The proposition is also conceding that human domination of the nonhuman is inevitable, meaning that at best ending animal testing will have little effect on the quality of life for nonhumans. I find that the opposition also comes out ahead on the reform argument. I don't think the proposition is doing any work on why reforming animal testing can't solve back for some of the ethical flaws of testing while still saving numerous human lives. In a world where reform is an alternative and I take a Biblical worldview on the value of life that humans have over animals, there is no way I can vote for the proposition as long as there is a risk that some animal testing is needed to save human lives, especially if human domination of the nonhuman is inevitable.