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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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