Instigator / Pro
27
1490
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Topic
#1835

It is Impossible to Ban Experimenting on/of Animals

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
2
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
1

After 4 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

DrSpy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

We shall assume that society wants to progress, meaning things such as, but not limited to a reduction in poverty, reduction of illness, reduction in effects of climate change.

Experiment: A course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the eventual outcome.

Please use comments for clarification.

Should have been an easy win for con.

-->
@TheJackle

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheJackle // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con.

>Reason for Decision: Argument is a big word game. We all know what animals means. This was setup as a fraud debate.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site rules:
"A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side. Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes."
************************************************************************

-->
@K_Michael

If you were in RatMan's shoes, I think that could be a successful K: define "impossible" in its most absolute sense

"Not possible; not able to be done or happen.quotations"

but, impossible was not defined for this debate and impossible has several valid definitions including the more colloquial:

"Very difficult to deal with."

tho you might get stuck having to argue that animal cruelty supersedes human progress. I'm not sure that holding DrSpy to his impossible claim would convince most voters but such a tactic would have to come in round 1. After a forfeit it seems more like a hail mary.

-->
@oromagi

"I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.
It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress."
See, you call the title a variation of the thesis, but then you combine them with a conjunction, which would be redundant if they had the same essential meaning. If the title and thesis both read "It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.", that would be a perfectly acceptable claim, though untrue.
While it may be true that animal experimentation is essential to progress, (I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion), the entire statement is false regardless. It neglects the fact that it is possible for progress to not occur. there have been plenty of times that a civilization had no technological advances of any kind for decades or even centuries at a time, civilizations can even regress. In the case that progress is halted, there is no longer any logical necessity for animal experimentation to exist.

-->
@K_Michael

I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.

It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.

Seems pretty valid. I agree that titles should either be the thesis or closely summarize a longer thesis but that is a stylistic choice and I would not want to see that level of conformity imposed.

-->
@DrSpy

In the future, have a title that actually matches your argument.

-->
@DrSpy

Your title claims that "It is impossible to ban experimenting on of animals"
But your argument is that "animal experimentation is essential to progress as a society."

These aren't even close to the same thing.