Challenge Match: TheMythLives vs peacejet: 'Anim'-naught Abuse...Or Is It?

The topic for this debate is “Sending Animals Into Space For Research Is Animal Abuse"

TheMythLives will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
peacejet will argue the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Edit to Add there is only one ranking point being wagered for this debate.

[edit on Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:58:25 -0500 by MemoryShock]

First of all, much thanks to MemoryShock for setting this debate up and much thanks for Peacejet in accepting to debate.

As you all know I like to keep openings short and to the point so here it is:

Lets get started the topic for debate is:
Sending Animals Into Space For Research Is Animal Abuse

So is it animal abuse? Simply put, yes.

Lets investiagte why: While many died, many also survived. But its risks like these that leave animals to suffer and die when something goes wrong. Worst of all these animals have no way to escape, they must sit there as they drift into space and die.

Animals used in experiments:

Laika a Dog sent into Space

Belka and Strekla

Chernushka

Zvezdoshka

Gordo

Able and Baker

Sam

Miss Sam

Ham

Enos

What a shame that we had to lose animals in such a way. Lost in space, with food, water, or warmth.

What constitutes animal abuse?

Killing or harming someone else's companion animal and failing to provide necessary food, water, shelter or medical attention for your own pet can be considered animal cruelty.

SOURCE

Interesting these animals were starved, dehydrated, didn't have PROPER shelter or medical attention in space.

Over the course of this debate. I will be using internet guides, animal cruelty websites and of course NASA. This is animal abuse people, nothing short of it..

Opening Statement-

Firstly, thanks to the Themythlives for accepting the debate and memoryshock for setting up this debate.

The topic for the debate is “Sending Animals Into Space For Research Is Animal Abuse”. I will be arguing con position and I will say that sending animals into space is not animal abuse.

While many died, many also survived. But its risks like these that leave animals to suffer and die when something goes wrong. Worst of all these animals have no way to escape, they must sit there as they drift into space and die.

Animal Research

It is not done on purpose, it is done for the lack for the lack of any other choice.

Animals go into space to help in research. But, they go only when absolutely necessary. Researchers prefer to use computer models or the astronauts. For some experiments, however, only animals will work. Sometimes the experiments need to be watched closely, as in a special diet. Human astronauts don't usually want to eat the same amount and type of food, everyday. Animals, however, usually have special diets. Animal data can transfer to human models and help prevent or solve physical issues people face today.

The animals which are supposed to go into space are not abused. They are trained, just like any other astronaut going into space. The only thing is, the training is different so that they can understand the things around them.

I will take the example of Ham the chimp which you mentioned.

Beginning in July 1959, the two-year-old chimpanzee was trained at the Holloman Air Force Base Aero Medical Field Laboratory to do simple, timed tasks in response to electric lights and sounds.In his pre-flight training, Ham was taught to push a lever within five seconds of seeing a flashing blue light; failure to do so would result in an application of positive punishment in the form of a mild electric shock to the soles of his feet, while a correct response earned him a banana pellet

And all this was not a waste of Hams efforts.

What differentiates Ham's mission from all the other primate flights to this point is that he was not merely a passenger, and the results from his test flight led directly to the mission Alan Shepard would make on May 5, 1961 aboard the Freedom 7.

Ham

What if Alan Shepard was sent to space directly with the assumed safety measures and systems? It would have failed and we would have lost a man in space. There would have been an outrage if we had sent a human without prior knowledge of what we might encounter.

Ham and other animals space flight experience made it more safe for our astronauts to go into space. In other words, they helped us go into space by giving us knowledge and making us feel safe. The ones who failed are martyrs for the space flight programme.

Do you know that Ham is in the “Hall of Fame” along with human astronauts?

Upon his death on January 17, 1983, Ham's body was preserved and loaned by the Smithsonian Institution to the International Space Hall of Fame in Alamogordo, New Mexico.

And Humans don’t have the distinction of being the first in orbit. It is held by other animals

The first animals intentionally sent into space were fruit flies, accompanied by corn seeds aboard a U.S.-launched V2 rocket in 1947. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the effects of radiation exposure at high altitudes. Some further V2 missions carried biological samples, including moss.

First in space

So, we cannot have the fame that we were the first in space. It rightly belongs to the (in order)fruit fly, mouse, dog, monkey and then only humans.

They pioneered safety for us. And the dogs and monkeys underwent training for it. And I don’t see the point of it being considered as abuse.

Socratic Question-

1. Do you think that we should have sent a human directly into space without prior knowledge of what we might face?

1. Do you think that we should have sent a human directly into space without prior knowledge of what we might face?

According to science as we know it today:

If a creature gets its energy from eating other things and it can move around on its own, then scientists call it an animal. Dogs, cats, frogs, fish, dinosaurs, and humans are all examples of animals.

LINK

Humans are animals. So why do we not take the choice or the risk? We could relay siganls of what is going on, an animal cannot. If there is an obvious issue that can easily be fixed by a human, a dog cannot do it. Why risk an animals life, if we are just going to risk our lives in the same fashion? It doesn't make sense.

One of Americas most looked upon and admired associations is a helper in animal abuse. NASA is spending $33.2 million to force monkeys to suffer through agonizing, invasion procedures. Fourteen electrode wires sunk into seven muscles in the monkeys' arms and legs tunnel under their skin and exit from a hole carved in their backs and more electrodes are inserted into the monkeys' brains, their exposed skulls covered with metal caps and eight holes are drilled into their skulls to accommodate a plastic "halo" so they cannot move their heads. Many of these monkeys have mutilated themselves trying to rip the wires out from under their skin, despite the fact that NASA binds them in straight jackets; after going through all of these painful surgeries, the monkeys' are then blasted into space alone for 14 days. During the two week period, the monkeys' will be completely restrained, obtaining food from a "sipper tube". NASA claims it helps study the effects of weightlessness on human astronauts, yet NASA already has data on human beings who have spent 400 days in space at a time however, if it goes wrong in space there is no one to help them so some of these experiments are death traps.

LINK

That my friend is animals abuse.

Animal mutilation, Animal death traps, straight jackets. Yes, it sure is a peaceful way up..

Sam would be the only primate launched during Project Mercury until 1961. But what was going on behind to scenes would prove to be most interesting. The chimps brought back from Cameroon were shipped to Holloman Air Force Base for training. It was in New Mexico that they would be prepared for space. It is said that the chimps were subjected to training that their human counterparts couldn't have completed. In his book "The Right Stuff," Tom Wolfe speaks about the terrible abuse these chimpanzees were subjected to. They would spend hours sitting in chairs and hitting levers. One article announced that the chimps were difficult to train because they were so much like humans.

LINK

Interesting, so the animals were abused! And look at this, one of the bidders for the animal atronuants was found guilty of animal abuse in the research area of space. What a shame:

The bid process came into question and it became evident that the Air Force had little intention to consider any other facility. A bit of outrage ensued due to The Coulston Foundations track record of abusing chimps. Over the years, USDA investigations found them negligible and at one point confiscated 300 of their chimps due to poor care.

LINK

So what is animal abuse:

Animal cruelty encompasses a range of behaviors harmful to animals, from neglect to malicious killing. Most cruelty investigated by humane officers is unintentional neglect that can be resolved through education. Intentional cruelty, or abuse, is knowingly depriving an animal of food, water, shelter, socialization, or veterinary care or maliciously torturing, maiming, mutilating, or killing an animal.

LINKY

Mutilating, Intentional Abuse, Knowingly deprived of food and water, Socialization, veterinary care and killing animals. Yep this is animal abuse.

___________________________________________________________

Now anazlyzing what PeaceJet stated:

It is not done on purpose, it is done for the lack for the lack of any other choice.

Actually it was, when you send an animal into space knowing full well that they may die, it is on purpose. They could have sent a robot in space if they wanted to see if it would come back. Why send an animal?

The animals which are supposed to go into space are not abused. They are trained, just like any other astronaut going into space. The only thing is, the training is different so that they can understand the things around them.

I've made it pretty clear that they were abused in training.

What if Alan Shepard was sent to space directly with the assumed safety measures and systems? It would have failed and we would have lost a man in space. There would have been an outrage if we had sent a human without prior knowledge of what we might encounter.

According to science we should not be. But we probably would be anyway. Again, why not just send a robot? It would have had the same effect and no one would have died!

___________________________________________________________

Socratic Question:

1) Do you believe that the animals were abused with the information from above?

2) Do you think that it was wrong?

3) Are humans animals?

4) If not (to number 4 explain why), if yes no need to explain.

Humans are animals. So why do we not take the choice or the risk? We could relay siganls of what is going on, an animal cannot. If there is an obvious issue that can easily be fixed by a human, a dog cannot do it. Why risk an animals life, if we are just going to risk our lives in the same fashion? It doesn't make sense.

I do agree that humans are animals. I will first justify why we use monkeys more in space research.

A human is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"). DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago. When compared to other animals and primates, humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving.

Whats the big deal you ask?

Origin-

The closest living relatives of humans are gorillas and chimpanzees, but humans did not evolve from these apes: instead these apes share a common ancestor with modern humans. Humans are probably most closely related to two chimpanzee species: Common Chimpanzee and Bonobo. Full genome sequencing has resulted in the conclusion that "after 6.5 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimpanzee and human are ten times greater than those between two unrelated people and ten times less than those between rats and mice".

Human

That my friend is animals abuse.

Animal mutilation, Animal death traps, straight jackets. Yes, it sure is a peaceful way up..

What you have said now is nothing compared to the abuse we are doing to the animals in the name of sustenance.

Farm animals are stunned by electricity or percussion, and killed by cutting the blood vessels in the neck, causing exsanguination. The halal and shechita method, used by Moslems and Jews, involves cutting the neck without stunning the animals. Shooting may be at close quarters, e.g. of horses, or from a distance, e.g. birds and rabbits. Fish caught at sea or by anglers die of asphyxia, when they are taken out of the water; anglers sometimes throw fish back after withdrawing the hooks; the fish may then die of inability to eat, or microbial or fungal infections. Trapping, snaring and hunting are rarely used in Britain for animals which are to be eaten.

Most animals in Britain are stunned. Bailhere's Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary (1988) defines it as "producing unconsciousness of head in carbon dioxide, gas, electrical shock ... all of them aiming to allow the animal to bleed out while it is still alive. An animal that is dead before it has bled out will be unsuitable for marketing." The latter definition regards stunning as rendering an animal unconscious, and the exsanguination as the cause of death. However, the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) says that the aim of stunning is "to deprive of consciousness or power of motion [my italics] by a blow, a fall or the like." The author of this entry gives paralysis as an alternative to loss of consciousness.

The captive bolt may penetrate the skull and destroy brain tissue, or cause a considerable rise in intracranial pressure. These result in instantaneous loss of consciousness (as a knock-out does in boxing), followed by collapse of the animal. If the brain tissue is not destroyed, the animal may come round, if the carotid arteries and jugular veins are not cut soon ("sticking"). Instant unconsciousness occurs if the aim is accurate, the animal is still, and the device works. Electrical stunning involves passing a large voltage across the animal's brain. Slaughtermen, butchers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, Compassion in World Farming and most people who eat meat, assume that the electric current causes instantaneous unconsciousness, so that the animals feel no pain. Unfortunately, there is evidence that this assumption may not be warranted.

Abuse we dont care about

We kill animals for our living. And we don’t consider this as an abuse. Worse, we don’t care about it at all. Why? We need it for our survival.

Similarly, in order for the astronauts to survive, we must have sent monkeys in space and researched the effect of gravity on the living body; otherwise we could have achieved the current status of Human Space Flight. If that is not an abuse, then this is also not an abuse. It is as simple as that.

Actually it was, when you send an animal into space knowing full well that they may die, it is on purpose. They could have sent a robot in space if they wanted to see if it would come back. Why send an animal?

Simple; Robots didn’t exist back in 1950’s and 60’s.

Actually it was, when you send an animal into space knowing full well that they may die, it is on purpose. They could have sent a robot in space if they wanted to see if it would come back. Why send an animal?

I have made it clear that this is not abuse.

According to science we should not be. But we probably would be anyway. Again, why not just send a robot? It would have had the same effect and no one would have died!

As I said, robots didn’t exist in Alan Shepard’s time.

Socratic Question:

1) Do you believe that the animals were abused with the information from above?

Nope. I explained that in the beginning of the post.

2) Do you think that it was wrong?

Nope. It was done for the safety of the astronauts. Imagine the public outrage if we had lost a human in space?

3) Are humans animals?

Yes, I have given a more scientific explanation.

4) If not (to number 4 explain why), if yes no need to explain.

I have said that humans are animals.

Lets examine what Peacejet stated:

We kill animals for our living. And we don’t consider this as an abuse. Worse, we don’t care about it at all. Why? We need it for our survival.

We kill animals for our living, I am assuming that this does not include human.

Killing for survival and killing for an experiment are TWO very different things. Why kill a monkey or a dog for an experiment? Why abuse them during the experiment? It does not make sense.

Similarly, in order for the astronauts to survive, we must have sent monkeys in space and researched the effect of gravity on the living body; otherwise we could have achieved the current status of Human Space Flight. If that is not an abuse, then this is also not an abuse. It is as simple as that.

How were they going to test the effect on gravity on a 14 pound dog or a 50 pound chimp? That must not have been accurate testing. After all humans weigh 130+, so that test was a shot in the dark... We could have achieved the same statuts if threw a man into space! The exact same status.

Its abuse.

Simple; Robots didn’t exist back in 1950’s and 60’s.

Your kidding right? I wonder what powered those metal people in Disney? robotics!

I have made it clear that this is not abuse.

No, you made it clear that it was.

As I said, robots didn’t exist in Alan Shepard’s time

They sort of did.

_________________________________________________________

Now for his answers on the SQ's:

Nope. I explained that in the beginning of the post.

Not sure how you didn't see the abuse....

Nope. It was done for the safety of the astronauts. Imagine the public outrage if we had lost a human in space?

What about the safety of ANIM-NAUGHTS! Why would there have been public outrage, according to science there shouldn't be. Outrage? What about when the shuttle Challenger exploded, there was outrage, but NASA continued.

__________________________________________________________

I believe this is pretty clear ladies and gentlemen, this is animal abuse. Nothing short of it...

We kill animals for our living, I am assuming that this does not include human.

Killing for survival and killing for an experiment are TWO very different things. Why kill a monkey or a dog for an experiment? Why abuse them during the experiment? It does not make sense.

Now, this is the mentality which I don’t like. You are justifying that animals can be killed for food, but not for experiments. Killing is killing. It doesn’t matter the way an animal is killed. The result is that it dies. And during experiments, the animal does not die like the ones people kill as a game. It in a way helps us learn. It serves its purpose for the experimental goals.

How were they going to test the effect on gravity on a 14 pound dog or a 50 pound chimp? That must not have been accurate testing. After all humans weigh 130+, so that test was a shot in the dark... We could have achieved the same statuts if threw a man into space! The exact same status.

Ahem. Just an little correction here. We are not testing the effect of gravity on the animals in space. We are testing the effects of Free fall/Weightlessness/Zero Gravity/Microgravity on the animal.

The thing is, that an ant, a monkey, a human, an elephant, a blue whale are all the same zero pound in space, no matter how much they weigh on ground.

Its abuse.

As I mentioned earlier; Nope.

Your kidding right? I wonder what powered those metal people in Disney? robotics!

I was not around the 60’s and I have never visited a Disney in my life. But you can’t say a assembly of motors, levers and nuts as robots. It has to be different, must have dynamic controlling and not fixed controlling. Those can be suitably called as "Electrical Machines" .

No, you made it clear that it was.

I think there is a misinterpretation here.

They sort of did

Nope. Space age style electrical machines aka robotics didn’t exist back then. Computers were pretty much restricted to large rooms and programs were in machine language. And we didn’t have computer controlled robots back then.

Not sure how you didn't see the abuse....

Not sure how you didn’t understand my post. The point of my previous post is simple. We don’t consider the painful slaughtering of animals for our own purposes as abuse. Then why should animal experiments considered as abuse?

What about the safety of ANIM-NAUGHTS! Why would there have been public outrage, according to science there shouldn't be. Outrage? What about when the shuttle Challenger exploded, there was outrage, but NASA continued.

Because the public themselves as a whole are consuming the non-Anim-naughts.

And NASA continued after,

a total redesign of the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters, which was watched over by an independent oversight group as stipulated by the commission. NASA's contract with Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for the solid rocket boosters, included a clause stating that in the event of a failure leading to "loss of life or mission," Thiokol would forfeit $10 million of its incentive fee and formally accept legal liability for the failure. After the Challenger accident, Thiokol agreed to "voluntarily accept" the monetary penalty in exchange for not being forced to accept liability.

Challenger

And I made it clear that this is not abuse, but a fact of life. We kill other animals for our existence and well being. It is the “Survival of the fittest”.

Socratic Question-

With reference to,

Killing for survival and killing for an experiment are TWO very different things

1. What are the “things” you are referring to?
2. And how can the killings be different? Eventually the animal dies right? Then how can killing for eating be right and the other wrong?

1. What are the “things” you are referring to?

One is justified killing for survival. The other is unjustified killing.

2. And how can the killings be different? Eventually the animal dies right? Then how can killing for eating be right and the other wrong?

Killing to eat is fine, because it has a PURPOSE. Killing an animal in space has no purpose, killing an animal just to leave it there has no purpose.

______________________________________________________

While I agree that animals used for food are abused in unnecessary ways, that does not make up the whole percentage. In fact many animals are killed quite quickly, because its law.

Yet NASA still continues to work with animals that they know are abused? Why?

KOCHI: ‘Bion’, a joint project of several countries, involved the sending of monkeys with bolts screwed into their heads and wires sunk into their limbs to space. It was being taken up despite the fact that human beings had already spent many hours in space and relevant data had been collected. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) raised the issue at various international fora and NASA pulled out of the study, according to the organisation.

march 2009

Why does NASA continue to work with organizations and studies in which they PARTICIPATE in to abuse animals. These animals are not treated with respect or dignity, they are there to be sent off into space and they do not care if they come back. Complete disreguard for there lives. Does not make sense.

According to NASA, for example, mice are frequently taken on board to explore the effects of microgravity on the nervous system of the animals. They are placed in ‘lockers’ containing food and water that are tightly sealed, and while the people on board can observe the mice, they do not have access to them for any treatment or manipulation. As a result, many die from starvation or other complications during the journey.

NASA

test the affects of the nervous system in anti-gravity. WHAT! As a result many die of starvation and starvation is a painful way to go. Here NASA admits that they abused animals.

For example, baby mammals tend to suffer in space because they crave warm, cuddled environments, which are impossible to achieve in an anti-gravity situation. They also have difficulty nursing because they cannot locate their mothers’ nipples.

NASA

Why do we subject these animals to unnecessary torture?

In 1996, NASA was still conducting a multi-million dollar research project called Bion that involved sending monkeys whose tails were cut off and who were placed into apparel similar to straight-jackets with restraining rings screwed into their skulls and various electrodes implanted throughout their bodies into space for 14 days.

NASA

NASA what are you doing? You need to stop abusing animals. Does the above sound respect? Does it sound necessary? I do not think so...

Animals are also used in NASA’s ground-based laboratories. In one study that simulated microgravity, mice were injected with bacteria called Salmonella typhimurium. Many died from shock or major organ failure as a result of the procedure. In another study, newborn rats were subjected to a painful experiment where they were suspended upside down from their legs for periods of up to 45 days to explore the affects that an anti-gravity environment would have on muscle atrophy..

NASA

Why inject them with a dangerous bacteria. What purpose is that. No reason for it at all....

________________________________________________________

It continues to be seen time and time again and NASA documents prove that they abused animals. Space Animals were abused, nothing short of it ladies and gentlemen.

SQ:

1) Does the above prove animal abuse now?

2) If yes, why are they abused in your opinion?
If no do not answer.

One is justified killing for survival. The other is unjustified killing.

Animal experiments are also for the purpose of our survival only. As a matter of fact it is for our well being.

Killing to eat is fine, because it has a PURPOSE. Killing an animal in space has no purpose, killing an animal just to leave it there has no purpose.

Animals are not intentionally killed in space. Something goes wrong during the experiment and the animal dies. Imagine the same situation, an astronaut is in the capsule and this same unimaginable thing happens. We lose a man in space. And as I said earlier, a human’s life is more valuable than an animal life.

Why does NASA continue to work with organizations and studies in which they PARTICIPATE in to abuse animals. These animals are not treated with respect or dignity, they are there to be sent off into space and they do not care if they come back. Complete disreguard for there lives. Does not make sense.

With regards to the Bion project, the information you linked to seems a bit out of date. NASA worries about the safety of animals and,

NASA has dropped out of participation in a planned Bion 12 mission.

And once again,

Before humans actually went into space, one of the prevailing theories of the perils of space flight was that humans might not be able to survive long periods of weightlessness. For several years, there had been a serious debate among scientists about the effects of prolonged weightlessness. American and Russian scientists utilized animals - mainly monkeys, chimps and dogs - in order to test each country's ability to launch a living organism into space and bring it back alive and unharmed.

and

Over the past 50 years, American and Soviet scientists have utilized the animal world for testing. Despite losses, these animals have taught the scientists a tremendous amount more than could have been learned without them. Without animal testing in the early days of the human space program, the Soviet and American programs could have suffered great losses of human life. These animals performed a service to their respective countries that no human could or would have performed. They gave their lives and/or their service in the name of technological advancement, paving the way for humanity's many forays into space.

Source-

History

Why inject them with a dangerous bacteria. What purpose is that. No reason for it at all....

All is for the safety of our astronauts. Salmonella bateria are dangerous and pose a threat to the astronauts in future long term missions to moon and mars.

They found the space-faring bacteria caused death quicker and more often than Earth-restricted organisms.
The findings are concerning for future astronauts who will embark on longer space missions farther away from Earth-based medical help, experts say.

There is always a chance for bacteria to stick to spacecraft parts and escape detection in the clean room and we can see it find its way to mars endangering the astronauts lives. And these experiments are the only way to gauge the effects.

Lethal Bacteria Turn Deadlier After Space Travel

NASA what are you doing? You need to stop abusing animals. Does the above sound respect? Does it sound necessary? I do not think so...

Do you ever realize how much it has helped astronauts who are on the ISS and those venturing to moon and mars in the future?

And since this animal researching led to human space flight many wonders have been achieved in nearly all fields. For example, in the medical field,

NASA technology has provided many benefits to the medical field. The pacemakers used to treat cardiac patients as well as the remote monitoring devices for intensive care patients were derived from the telemetry systems that first monitored astronauts and spacecraft. Much of the portable medical equipment carried aboard ambulances has its roots in NASA's needs for such portable equipment in space.

Sources-

NASA

Since you wont accept NASA

CNN

1) Does the above prove animal abuse now?

No. It is a plain simple and easily understandable. Accidental killing of animals during experiments is not at all abuse. And moreover as mentioned in previous rebuttals, if we don’t consider killing of animals for food as abuse, why should killings during the course of experiments be considered as one?

2) If yes, why are they abused in your opinion?
If no do not answer.

I said No. They are not abused in my opinion.

Socratic Question-

1. You wouldn't want to directly test the salmonella bacteria on a human would you?

Peacejet's comments:

Animals are not intentionally killed in space. Something goes wrong during the experiment and the animal dies. Imagine the same situation, an astronaut is in the capsule and this same unimaginable thing happens. We lose a man in space. And as I said earlier, a human’s life is more valuable than an animal life.

Animals are intentionally placed into space, which then leads back to the death being intentional.

A humans life is more valuable than an animal? WAIT a second. You stated:

Peacejet: I do agree that humans are animals.

So whats the difference? Why is the human life more VALUABLE if we are all animals? Because of emotions? Nope, because elephants, hippos and dogs all have emotions they mourn their lost. Is it because of intelligence? Nope because dolphins are highly intelligent.

Animals are animals.

these animals have taught the scientists a tremendous amount more than could have been learned without them. Without animal testing in the early days of the human space program, the Soviet and American programs could have suffered great losses of human life.

You do realize the above states are complete BS? Because animals are humans and the space program would not have had any changes if a human were in space, infact humans might have been able to bring the ships home.

Do you ever realize how much it has helped astronauts who are on the ISS and those venturing to moon and mars in the future?

So cutting the monkeys tails off, putting them in straight jackets, mutilating them, injecting them with unnecessary chemicals, probing them, etc. So all of that is for the future?..lol.. way off....

No. It is a plain simple and easily understandable. Accidental killing of animals during experiments is not at all abuse. And moreover as mentioned in previous rebuttals, if we don’t consider killing of animals for food as abuse, why should killings during the course of experiments be considered as one?

How do you not see the abuse? Anyway, the above is abuse according to the guidelines for animal abuse.

______________________________________________________

1. You wouldn't want to directly test the salmonella bacteria on a human would you?

You bet I would. Thats much better than injecting some monkey. Human and monkey anatomy are different. To tests the effects fully would to be to test them on the source your testing it for. With a human you know what you can get, if you test it on a monkey it may react differently than what a human would.

After the US government has been doing it for some time:

1946: Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.

1950: In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.

1956: U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.

SOURCE

So why can we not experiment on humans? After all we are animals and share a common heritage with earth worms.

Holt’s 10th-grade biology textbook “You are an animal, and share a common heritage with earthworms...” (1994, Johnson, p. 453).

So whats so bad about Human experimenting? Nothing, because according to science, we share a common heritage with earthworms and we are animals.

David Suzuki stated in an interview with Jo Merchant “[W]e must acknowledge that we are animals.... We like to think of ourselves as elevated above other creatures. But the human body evolved” (Marchant, 2008, 200[2678]:44).

___________________________________________________________

Animal Abuse is animal abuse people, and these animal naughts have been abused.

Closing Statement-

Since this is the closing statement, I will clear some misunderstandings and make my point clear.

Animals are intentionally placed into space, which then leads back to the death being intentional.

One thing that needs to be clear here is that the animals are not on a suicide mission. The scientists who trained it have close bond/feeling for it and they are worried about the safety of the monkey or any animal they are taking care of.

All deaths are accidental. Ill make this clear.

For example, the Albert experiment series,

Albert-I-

Early in the morning of 18 June 1948, a nine-pound anaesthetized rhesus monkey was sealed inside the capsule, which in turn was placed in the nose of a V-2 rocket. Because the monkey's name was Albert the entire operation became known as the Albert (I) Project.

Unfortunately, the project was plagued with a whole series of operational failures. The apparatus for transmitting respiratory movements failed even before the time of launch. This probably made no real difference, though, because there are indications that Albert died as a result of breathing difficulties in the cramped capsule before his rocket left the ground. Even the parachute recovery system devised to lower the nose cone with its animal capsule back to earth failed to function properly, and Albert would have been killed upon impact even if he had not died previously

Albert II-

The net result of the first Albert project, then, was experience for the scientists who had taken part in it and the incentive to do better next time. This they succeeded in doing. For the second experiment, which took place a year later on 14 June 1949, the capsule was redesigned to let the subject (Albert II) assume a less cramped position. The instrumentation was also improved, and so was the parachute recovery system. The latter still was not improved enough, however, and Albert II died at impact, but respiratory and cardiological data were successfully recorded up to that moment.

Thus it was established that a monkey had lived during an entire flight which reached an altitude approximately eighty-three miles above the surface of the earth.

And also,

Finally, when the second aeromedical Aerobee was fired 20 September 1951, the long-awaited breakthrough in parachute recovery was successfully accomplished. This vehicle carried an arkful of animals to an altitude of 236,000 feet and brought them all back alive. Included in the menagerie were a monkey instrumented to record heart beat, respiration and blood pressure; nine mice who went along simply to be exposed to cosmic radiation; and two other mice in a rotating drum for the photographic observation of their reactions to subgravity.

Two hours after impact the monkey died, but data recorded during flight as [4] well as the later autopsy suggested that death was not the result of any ill effects of the flight but rather of landing shock or heat prostration, or probably both. There had been a slight delay in retrieving and opening the capsule after it was successfully parachuted down and the monkey's small compartment became much too hot in the midday sun of southern New Mexico. Two of the eleven mice also died following recovery but none showed any apparent ill effects from cosmic radiation.

As you can see, all deaths are accidental and not deliberate. It was due to failure of the instrumentation and/or recovery systems. But all did not go waste. Those research has led to safer recovery mechanisms and helped the Apollo astronauts return safely to earth and those results are currently helping the shuttle and will help the future vehicles to return safely back to earth.

So, it can be seen clearly that accidental death is different from abuse.

Source-

History

So whats the difference? Why is the human life more VALUABLE if we are all animals? Because of emotions? Nope, because elephants, hippos and dogs all have emotions they mourn their lost. Is it because of intelligence? Nope because dolphins are highly intelligent.

Human life is more valuable because we are more intelligent than other animals. We have the ability to rule over the earth. We are like the carnivores on the top of the food chaing. We are more or less supreme. We are modifying nature for our needs. We have the intelligence and knowledge. So, isn’t human life valuable?

You do realize the above states are complete BS? Because animals are humans and the space program would not have had any changes if a human were in space, infact humans might have been able to bring the ships home.

All animals are not humans. Humans are a type of animal species and are different from other animals in both physical and psychological nature. Then why is there a separate human rights commission and animal rights commission? It is clear that we humans are distinct.

So, you are justifying that astronauts deserve to risk dying in space when we don’t know how the instrumentation and other systems will perform? Imagine humans in the place of monkeys I mentioned.

So cutting the monkeys tails off, putting them in straight jackets, mutilating them, injecting them with unnecessary chemicals, probing them, etc. So all of that is for the future?..lol.. way off....

Yep, did you ever realize how safe the astronauts and their families feel due to these research?

How do you not see the abuse? Anyway, the above is abuse according to the guidelines for animal abuse.

Some points,

1. As I mentioned earlier, we kill animals for our living and we do not consider that as abuse.
2. We kill animals for our well being(read as ‘pampering’) in the form of cosmetics.
3. Then why should accidental killings during experiments for the safety of astronauts and well being of humans should be considered abuse?

After the US government has been doing it for some time:

I cant understand why you are bringing the government in this. I don’t generally involve in politics, but let me point out that the experiments were carried with access to medical facilities and we are talking like 250 miles up(Low Earth Orbit) or from 36 million miles to over 250 million miles apart(in case of Mars). What medical facilities can the astronauts avail on Mars which is six months away let alone LEO where there is atleast three landing opportunities a day for a given location. We couldn’t have done anything in space.

So why can we not experiment on humans? After all we are animals and share a common heritage with earth worms.

Sure all have a common ancestor. But you are failing to see the evolutionary path we took over the millions of years and our current capability. This makes us special. This gives us priority to be safe. This gives us brain to stay safe.

Conclusion-

As I have stated over the course of the debate, these experimentation cannot be considered as animal abuse. And I am sure that I have made my point clear. It is not abuse.

Now, Ill leave this debate to the judges. And I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful opportunity.

Thanking you,
peacejet.

We Have A Winner!!!!!

TheMythLives

Opening: Concise and to the point. You express your argument well here. Great opening. (+1)

First Rebuttal: Oops, you didn’t finitely answer the Socratic Question, as is required by the Debate Forum Rules. (-1)

Aside from this, you continue to establish that there was indeed abuse in NASA’s programming of the animnaughts being “trained”. (+1)

Second Rebuttal: Your response in this reply was a bit less enthusiastic than the past ones. Your answers seemed a bit curt.

As far as robots are concerned, I don’t think that peacejet was talking about the Disney kind of robots. I think he/she was referring more towards the concept of an android, based on his/her reply. As far as history has shown, something like that has yet to be invented, to the levels needed for proper experimentation.

Overall, this post was simply a rebuttal post, and offered no new corroborating evidence to support your argument. (0)

Third Rebuttal: It must be admitted here that this post has all the earmarks of a landslide post. You make the required responses to the Socratic Questions, although the answers seem a little vague. It’s difficult to see how sending animals into space has no purpose. There are many benefits to it. (0)

You add fuel to the fire of this debate by adding in a huge dose of research which helps to solidify your argument here. This was VERY well done! (+1)

Excellent Socratic Questions! (+1)

Closing: Those first 3 rebuttals to quotes were amazing! Well done! (+1)

What a fitting way to close with a great response to that final Socratic Question. Very nice reply! (+1)

You put up a good fight, and made a great case for your side.

Total Points: 5

peacejet

Opening: Your opening was good. You establish what it is that you aim to prove, as well as begin the process of setting up your argument. During the opening, however, you don’t refute your opponent’s definition of the term abuse. This could have played heavily into your favor. You try to refute their argument by showing how NASA trained all of their “animnaughts” before sending them up. (0)

You did a great job with that excellent Socratic Question!!

Overall, a standard opening. (+1)

First Rebuttal: Wow!! What a powerful post!! That post tosses all of your opponent’s arguments right back at them, and adds a few things to boot! I must admit that I wasn’t expecting that. A pleasant surprise to be sure! Also, great answers to the Socratic Questions! (+1)

Second Rebuttal: When you made the statement, “I think there is a misinterpretation here.”, it would have been helpful if you could have elaborated on that some, for the benefit of the audience. For example, you could have talked about how it was misrepresented. It would have bolstered your argument, as you would have shut out that particular part of their argument. (0)

You make solid points, you rebut your opponent well, and make a convincing case for the audience. And once again, you ask some very pertinent Socratic Questions. (+1)

Third Rebuttal: Excellent rebuttal to TML’s post! You added a lot of information during that rebuttal to get people thinking about the relevance of testing animals in space. (+1)

Decent responses to the Socratic Questions. Nothing earth-shattering though. (0)

Great final Socratic Question! (+1)

Closing: Great closing. You make your case and finish tidying up your argument in good fashion. Well done. (+1)

Total Points: 6

Final Note to both TheMythLives and peacejet: One thing that has been noted here in this debate is that it seemed to get a bit heated. While it’s perfectly fine for there to be passion when debating, we all must remember to maintain our composure, as that’s how debates are won. In scholastic debates, when one team gets heated, they fall apart, as they get so passionate about the debate topic that they lose sight of the end goal; making the better case. Just some food for thought. Well fought guys!! WELL DONE!

Judgment: As can be seen, it’s the opinion of this judge that peacejet has made the best case for the topic. It should be noted here that the judgment was based solely on the quality of the case made, and not on any bias of the judge.

A heartfelt THANK YOU to both TheMythLives and peacejet for this wonderful debate! VERY well done!

TheMythLives gave his usual short and to the point opening statement. His use of outside sources backed his position very well setting the stage for his debate.

peacejet's opening statement while not as short also clearly stated his objectives. He also used outside sources very well to support his position as well as setting the stage for his debate.

In the next post TheMythLives presented some compelling evidence supporting his position and successfully refuted peacejet's assertions in his opening post.

In his next post however, peacejet seemed unable to directly refute TheMythLives and attempted to steer the debate in the direction that would most benefit him.

However, TheMythLives maintained his position and refused to be sidetracked and continued to refute peacejet's suppositions while still maintaining the course he started with.

Both fighters are to be congratulated on a great fight. Both did a good job using the resources available to not only refute the other one but maintain his position. Although peacejet's attempt to steer the debate was a good one it was ultimately unsuccessful. It is for that reason I feel TheMythLives won.

Continued::::::>>>>>>

This proved to be an interesting and eye-opening debate on several levels.

Opening Statement
TheMythLives
The opening statement is short, concise and to the point. The listing of specific test animals from the start gives the reader a good indication of where this argument is headed.

Peacejet
Off the bat, this statement absolutely floored me.



It is not done on purpose, it is done for the lack for the lack of any other choice.



It’s positively done on purpose. It’s done for research purposes. These animals don’t end up in space by accident, it’s a means to an end.

Be that as it may, the use of NASA as a reference is both credible and brilliant. Make the case by going directly to the source. Good strategic move.

First Reply
TheMythLives
TheMythLives makes what appears to be a heart-wrenching argument with the graphic description of NASA’s treatment of research monkeys. However, his source happens to be nothing more than a blog. Even the blog doesn’t have a source listed to back its claims. Unfortunately, this makes for a less than reliable source.

On the other hand, TheMythLives does a good job of analyzing peacejet’s opening statement and issuing forth counter points. However, the whole robots as test subject premise is a bit on the thin side. Presents a solid set of Socratic Questions.

Peacejet
Excellent rebuttal from beginning to end! It is straight and to the point. The distinctions made between the treatment of animal test subjects and animals at slaughter strengthened this case. Also, the handling of the Socratic Questions was absolutely spot on. This post was nice and trim with no added fat. Nicely handled!

Second Reply
TheMythLives
The second reply could have been stronger overall.



Killing for survival and killing for an experiment are TWO very different things. Why kill a monkey or a dog for an experiment? Why abuse them during the experiment? It does not make sense.



This could have been a strong point had TheMythLives chosen to expand upon it. However, he didn’t and as a reader I’m left scratching my head and wondering why this point was left hanging. It comes across as an incomplete line of logic.

Also, the robot premise is raised again, but… he provides no evidence that existing technology at the time would have been adequate to completely skip animal test subjects and leap directly to sending humans into space. This point could have been made much stronger had he taken the time to provide a little substance to back up this claim.

Peacejet


You are justifying that animals can be killed for food, but not for experiments. Killing is killing. It doesn’t matter the way an animal is killed. The result is that it dies. And during experiments, the animal does not die like the ones people kill as a game. It in a way helps us learn. It serves its purpose for the experimental goals.



This is a complete, and might I add, strong point/counter argument. It’s a hurdle that the opponent hasn’t able to successfully leap.

Peacejet also provides a sound point regarding the use of animal test subjects to study the effects of gravity. He also deftly handles the robot/technology angle fairly well. He has taken care to solidify his argument on both fronts.

Requesting that TheMythLives clarify his position via Socratic Questions is a good move.

Third Reply
TheMythLives
He is unable to quite pull off his argument to Peacejet’s Socratic Questions. He skirts around the issue as to why the treatment of test animals for space is abuse, but the treatment of animals for slaughter isn’t. It doesn’t quite add up. Had TheMythLives taken the time to further expand upon this point, his argument may have been more compelling.

Also, the NASA references provided are a little misleading in that the source itself is not from NASA but an activist animal-rights organization. To a reader who may not follow up on the references cited, it appears that the external source material is culled directly from NASA, which is not the case.

However, through these references TheMythLives has finally provided some substance to his argument that space animal test subjects may suffer from construed abuse as a direct result of various experiments. Honestly, these points should have been made when answering the above Socratic Questions, but at least they’ve been addressed.

Peacejet
Peaceject goes a long way to make a distinction between intentionally inflicted animal abuse, and animal deaths resulting as a side effect of scientific research. Huge difference. Also references NASA directly to further strengthen his argument. Nothing quite like grabbing the bull by its horns to get a point across.

There is a bit of confusion regarding the third link referencing NASA. While the link is about NASA, it does not come directly from NASA’s website, but from a different organization.

Handles the Socratic Questions put forth by the opponent quite well. Presents a valid Socratic Question in return.

Closing Statement
TheMythLives
Treading on dangerous territory here:



Why is the human life more VALUABLE if we are all animals?...

(break)

Animals are animals.



The point has been made and agreed upon that humans are to be considered a type of animal in context to this debate. It is one thing to make this particular statement, but quite another to make the following:



Because animals are humans and the space program would not have had any changes if a human were in space…



Huh? Uh, no. Not even close. (Not even with my eyes closed whilst channeling my inner-Charlton Heston in that god-awful remake, Planet of the Apes.)

At this point, TheMythLives’ argument has officially gone kaput. No amount of spin could possibly overcome this bit of way-way-way-out-in-left-field conjecture. Sorry, even my ability to lean towards the incredible won’t stretch that far. It just ain’t happening.

However, in all fairness, let’s just move past this glaring flaw and continue on towards his response to the Socratic Question regarding human experimentation…



You bet I would. Thats much better than injecting some monkey…

(break)

…the US government has been doing it for some time…



I fail to see how TheMythLives can possibly equate animal experimentation to human experimentation. The only possible conclusion to his argument that I’m able to discern is that all experimentation on any living creature (human or otherwise) is wrong, and therefore mankind should bite the proverbial bullet by skipping non-human experimentation regarding space research altogether and allow humans to suffer any regrettable consequences as a result. Because the value of non-human life should be on par with a human’s. Even though he has no compunction as to allowing animals (non-human, that is) to be slaughtered for human consumption.

It’s a mixed argument to say the least.

Peacejet
Okay, peacejet pretty much summed up what I stated above in a tidy little package.

Once again, the main source regarding animal test subjects comes directly from NASA. The article cited is in-depth and provides a wealth of information.



All animals are not humans. Humans are a type of animal species and are different from other animals in both physical and psychological nature.


Point made loud and clear.



As you can see, all deaths are accidental and not deliberate. It was due to failure of the instrumentation and/or recovery systems. But all did not go waste. Those research has led to safer recovery mechanisms and helped the Apollo astronauts return safely to earth and those results are currently helping the shuttle and will help the future vehicles to return safely back to earth.

So, it can be seen clearly that accidental death is different from abuse.



Also, a valid point.

The Judgment
From the onset of the debate, it appeared that TheMythLives had an easier argument to support. In fact, he made a great opening statement to that effect. In all honesty, peacejet had a more difficult viewpoint to support and was clearly the underdog.

Unfortunately, TheMythLives’ argument quickly lost steam after the opening statement and pretty much stalled after that point. This allowed peaceject to easily refute his opponent’s claims and take the upper hand in the debate. It is not until the very end of the third reply that TheMythLives seems to offer any evidence that animal abuse occurs in the space program. If this information had been made early on with a credible source (not a second-hand blog) then his argument would probably have carried more weight. However, he introduced this material too late in the game and wasn’t able to overcome peacejet’s stance.

While excellent points were made on both sides of the debate, peacejet made the most compelling argument, by far. This battle goes to peacejet.

peacejet is the victor!!!!!!!

Great Debate!!!!

Semper

Thank you judges for the result. And thanks to semper for posting the results, and thanks to mem for setting up this debate.

And a special thanks to TML for debating me.