It is Impossible to Ban Experimenting on/of Animals
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Should have been an easy win for con.
*******************************************************************
>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."
************************************************************************
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.
"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.
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.
In the future, have a title that actually matches your argument.
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.