Instigator / Pro
Points: 27

It is Impossible to Ban Experimenting on/of Animals

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
DrSpy
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
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.
Round 1
Published:
I shall demonstrate that animal experimentation is essential to progress as a society.

Some housekeeping definitions:

Animal, a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. 

Progress:  and Experiment definitions are as set forth in the topic description.

========

While this debate could theoretically be very long, I will attempt to focus on one particular area.  Food.

There are six significant challenges in feeding the world, two of them are population growth and climate change.  (https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/feeding-the-developing-world-six-major-challenges/)

The two issues are correlated, as demonstrated in the above reference.
 
“A further wild card is that both insects and crop diseases are likely to flourish with warmer temperatures.”

In order to maximize the production of crops, required to feed an ever-growing population, pest management and control is essential.  

Pest management is accomplished through a number of techniques.    Integrated Pest Management or Integrated Pest Control is defined by the United Nations as:

the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.”

(http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/ipm/en/)

In 1979  US President Carter put an interagency committee together to ensure the development and implementation of IP practices.  http://www.biconet.com/reference/IPMhistory.html  According to the US Environmental Protection Agency there are 6 basic components of IPM. (https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol)

  1. Acceptable Pest Levels
  2. Preventive Cultural Practices
  3. Monitoring
  4. Mechanical Controls
  5. Biological Controls
  6. Responsible Use.

The basic principle of IPM is to understand what the acceptable pest level is, and then implement mechanical, biological controls and then responsible use of synthetics to maintain those levels.

IPM is an iterative decision-making process based on the feedback of the different components.  (https://www.mae.gov.nl.ca/env_protection/pesticides/business/manuals/applic_chapter7.pdf)

Different combinations of mechanical, biological, and synthetic controls are tried to achieve the desired pest level results.  The results are not known ahead of time. 

Feeding the growing population requires pest management. By definition pests are animals. By definition, IPM is an iterative, and experimental process.  Therefore the experimentation on animals is a fundamental necessity, and cannot be banned.

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
My opponent has not responded, so in addition to my previous statements, I want to address a comment made.


@K_Michael stated,

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.


The narrative of the debate definition clearly mentions the progress of society as part of the debate.

Second, my argument clearly shows that even maintaining our current food levels would require experimentation on pests.  Therefore it is impossible to ban experimenting o animals, as a ban would effectively ban agriculture.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
I hope my counterpart contributes something.  My position has not changed based on their silence.

Published:
I knew if you included humans in the definition of 'animals' that I'd lose this debate. You did that, so I lost. I thought you wouldn't.

Added:
Should have been an easy win for con.
#7
Added:
--> @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."
************************************************************************
#6
Added:
--> @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.
#5
Added:
--> @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.
#4
Added:
--> @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.
#3
Added:
--> @DrSpy
In the future, have a title that actually matches your argument.
#2
Added:
--> @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.
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
THBT: it is IMPOSSIBLE to BAN EXPERIMENTING on/of ANIMALS
CON concedes ARG, ARGS to PRO
PRO had 5 good relevant sources, CON had none
CON forfeited the majority of this debate and made no effort, conduct to PRO
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession.
I will however note that pro's case was centered on the impracticality, rather than the actual impossibility. Reminiscent of prohibition or abortion, things can be banned, and people still do them.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con never makes an argument, or addressed any of Pro's arguments. Moreover, it is clear that any argument, however good or bad, beats no argument. As a result, Pro wins arguments.
Pro wins conduct because Con forfeited.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Being a defra license holder myself, this is not exactly easy for me. However, given the Con forfeited 4 rounds and then admitted a surrender, i feel voting for Con is out of the question. So the question is. Did Pro do a good enough job in presenting anytype of argument? Well he cited a UN study, which is a good source "Feeding the growing population requires pest management. By definition pests are animals. By definition, IPM is an iterative, and experimental process. Therefore the experimentation on animals is a fundamental necessity, and cannot be banned." and his argument unchallenged and appears to be legit.
And Pro stuck at the debate, did not forfeit.
Pro