Round 2. PurdueNuc V Phoenix: Animal Testing

Debate 2

The topic for this debate is "It is morally acceptable to conduct animal testing for products or medicines that are beneficial to Humans."

PurdueNuc will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Phoenix will argue against this proposition.

Each debator 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.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included as part of the argument in each post. This does not include references, no more than 5 of which can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images or links in the argument, and must have no more than 3 references.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Kano]

Thank you, Kano, judges, fellow debaters, and curious onlookers, for providing and supporting this excellent platform for rhetorical discussion. I am deeply humbled by your allowance of me to return and debate another fine question challenging modern society. And indeed, the issue my opponent and I are faced with is a tricky one, for as StrangeLands and I showed in our debate, questions of morality bring much passion and struggle to the table.

Animals are used to test a myriad of products, from toiletries to pharmaceuticals, and have been used thusly for centuries. Certainly the question of the morality of said practice has come up many times during the course of the ages, yet humanity has seen fit to continue. The critics will claim that this is due to rogue scientists and profit-seekers, whom have laid every shred of morality aside in their quests for money or fame. Certainly society would see through the thin veil they hide themselves with if this were true, and outlaw such practices! Alas, this has not happened, and I will explain why. I assure you it is not due to the failing of society to police it's own; rather, it can be attributed to the misguided notions of a small fraction of the population, who would rather see humanity perish than allow a lowly rat to give the ultimate sacrifice.

I am afraid that I am ill-prepared to undertake a debate such as this, as my engineering background has trained me to examine things based primarily on their technical merits, and trust the politicians and theologians to evaluate the moral and ethical impact. Here we are not discussing the methods of animal testing, nor are not even discussing the goals thereof. On the contrary, we are examining the overall relationship that exists between man and beast. The question placed before us is not merely whether or not it is morally acceptable to use animals as test subjects, rather it is the following: Does man abuse his dominance over animals?

That man has dominance over the rest of God's creatures there is no question. One may argue as to how this dominance was obtained, whether by Divine design or by human ingenuity, and this may have great impact on the outcome of this discussion. The most important matter, however, is how the relationship between man and animal compares to the relationships within the animal world. Yet, even then, one must ask whether man's behavior towards the animal kind should model the interrelationships between animals.

I will show, quite convincingly, that man's dominance over animals, regardless of the means by which it was obtained, gives man a certain natural freedom in choosing how to treat them. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that the notion of man �lowering� himself to the animals level by using them as test subjects is a farse, and as such, it will logically follow that man is within his moral right to use them so, quod erat demonstrandum.

Now my friends, you see why a philosopher or theologist, or even a poet, could make a better case than I. I ask you to grant this humble engineer some patience as he stumbles blindly through this unknown territory, as his slide rule is of no help out here. My attempt may turn out to be futile, but I promise it will be valiant, and at the very least, entertaining.

I congratulate my opponent Phoenix for a well-fought round 1 debate and an excellent win, and I invite him to take the stand and enlighten us with his opening statement.

595 words

I am honored to take part in this noble endeavor with my esteemed and most capable debate partner PurdueNuc. The Judges deserve special mention for the hard work they had to do in the first round. Thanks again Kano for using your valuable time to organize this debate. I extend my thanks to the over 3000 spectators that viewed round one.

There was a time when the descriptive use of morality where in its simplest form it was interpreted to mean a set of rules or conduct to follow put forth by society may have allowed the use of animals to test products or medicinal compounds. I would be more inclined to say that rather than society finding animal testing morally good it tolerated it as a necessary evil. That questionable moral position has now disappeared into history, I intend to show why that is the case.

Now all supporters of the use of animals as test subjects have left to fall back on is a much weaker argument of moral relativism. Technology, great leaps forward in the science of biology and economic factors along with new laws have precluded even this path of argument as reasonable.

The case can be made that since ancient times Humans have recognized and realized there is a moral obligation to treat animals well precisely because our dominant position over them comes with responsibility. Imagine the shame of a Mongol who let his injured horse suffer or the cowboy treated with abject contempt in the same situation centuries later. History shows us that morality in the treatment of animals is not a 21st century invention.

The modern argument seems to have begun in 1789 when Philosopher Jeremy Bentham sounded this rallying cry for animals everywhere: "The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"

These words sparked the movement for animal rights in the 19th century with the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Great Britain and the United States. The first set of �Anti-Cruelty� laws was passed in Great Britain.

Scientific advances in the 1950�s began to change conventional wisdom on the necessity and efficacy of animal testing as well as the morality of it for product and medicinal safety.

With the quiet but groundbreaking work published by British researchers W. Russell and R. Burch in 1959 entitled �The Principles Humane Experimental Technique� and the advancement of the �three R�s� principle of �Replacement, Reduction and Refinement�
In recognition of the immorality of animal testing researchers and animal rights advocates have found common ground in coming up with ways to find scientifically valid alternatives to animal tests.

The effort to find alternatives begun in earnest 45 years ago has resulted in scientific methods negating the need to torture animals in laboratories in order to validate product safety.

The advancement of scientific method offering alternatives to animal testing has led to recognition of the immorality of its practice. Many European nations have passed legislation and signed conventions disallowing animal testing for the cosmetic industry and have placed severe limits on animal testing for other uses with the future holding the promise of a total ban on testing with animals. The United States has begun the process that the Europeans have shown to work by passing a more limited set of laws pertaining to animal testing. It is official policy of the National Institute for Health (NIH) to adhere to the three �R�s� first promulgated by Russell and Burch in all of its funded projects.

Although there may have been a necessity for animal testing in the past when no other options were present � the options now exist making the formally morally relativistic arguments for its continuation an immoral prospect.

The argument for the use of animals in testing is a rhetorical argument without underpinning and has no moral basis in this day and age.


Over to you PurdueNuc,

Phoenix




658 words

When I was a child, I had nearly every type of domestic pet imaginable: cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, and fish, to name a few. I treated these animals well, yet they were never much more than living toys. I played with them and used them as decoration, and if one were to die, certainly I was sad, but I could always go the pet store and get another. Obviously my case is not indicative of all pet-owner relationships, as many pet owners claim to �love� their pets, while there are others who unfortunately abuse their pets. The modern pet-owner relationships are analogous to slave-master relationships of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Some masters treated their slaves well, others abused them mercilessly, while a few even considered the slaves part of the family. Regardless of how well the slaves were treated, this simple fact remained: they were slaves, deemed inferior to their masters, forcibly sold in market, and used to make the master's life better. Why does society openly accept the owning of pets yet vehemently opposes the owning of slaves? This is due to the simple reason that animals are inferior to man, and have been since early man first established his dominance.

Let us jump back 100,00 years or so, when early Homo sapiens and their predecessors were both predator and prey, with large carnivores such as lions and tigers being their greatest predators. However, man had superior intelligence over these creatures, which allowed him to develop tools and weapons to overcome his disadvantage in size and strength. The use of these tools also made man a more efficient hunter, and allowed him to spend more time further developing technologies. Man soon learned that the simple minds of animals allowed them to be trained, and thus could be used as tools as well for tasks such as hunting, farming, and transportation.

It is convenient that my opponent brings up the idea of horses not being allowed to suffer by Mongol warriors and cowboys. What would happen if a horse were to break its leg? It would be killed out of pity, and in the case of the Mongols, probably served for dinner. It is abhorrent to allow the animal to suffer due to its injury, yet second thought would not be given to killing it to ease this suffering. Is this not contrary to the treatment of fellow humans, where every effort is made to maintain life? And what of the reason these horses were injured in the first place? They were being used as a means of transportation, and certainly not by their own accord. So it is immoral to allow the animal to suffer, yet morally acceptable to use the animal as a tool?

The answer is yes, it is within the standard of common morality to use animals as tools. Whether they are used to allow man to have a happier life, or an easier one, man's superior intellect affords him this advantage. Using animals as test subjects for products, particularly pharmaceuticals, is no different than riding a horse or training a dog to retrieve ducks. Whether or not there is an alternative is not the issue at bar here. We have developed a plethora of modes of transportation that are alternatives to riding horses, yet most cowboys still saddle up every morning. Few people would claim them to be immoral for this.

I apologize for the delay in my response, 24 hours is not as long a time as I once thought. I turn the podium back to you, Phoenix.

596 words

I am dominant over the inferior, therefore I can do as I will.

This is a great example exemplifying the dangers of moral relativism.

How many tyrants throughout the centuries used that very same logic to justify moral superiority as well as racial superiority over the inferior? In fact, my opponent would suggest that we, as humans, tyrannize those species that are weaker or inferior.

Tyrannize: a ruler who has unlimited power over others and uses it unfairly and cruelly

One could even use this theory to morally justify that medical experiments completed in the concentration camps of Germany or Japan were to the benefit of mankind because they led to advancements in medical knowledge. Even though these regimes had morally justified these activities due to their belief of dominance and superiority over the inferior they were reviled the world over for their abject immorality. Many were prosecuted and put to death for these immoral crimes.

Suggesting that animals are not rational or intelligent creatures and therefore are inferior beings to be exploited regardless of the pain and suffering caused by our actions (considering our dominant position as reason enough to construe moral justification) has as its moral equivalent the use of infants, children, the senile and mentally deficient as test subjects by the very same reasoning. If my opponents assertion that dominance over a thing grants moral freedom to oppress that thing, then there is no difference between these two examples; it is arbitrary to think otherwise.

One cannot base moralism on a dominant position � it is a contradiction to use these two words together as well as in thought. To do so defies and corrupts the very definition of morality.

While it is true man has a long history domesticating, training, hunting with, farming and using animals as transport it has been a cooperative effort where each species derives positive benefit. Animals received food, shelter, safety and respect. It can be argued man received the very same benefits especially nomadic societies.

Throughout that long history reasonable and sane men have found it reprehensible and morally questionable to mistreat or cause undue suffering to animals (domesticated or wild). In modern times one consistently abusing animals is thought to be morally dysfunctional, possibly psychopathic and at risk of becoming a serial killer � not exactly the picture of morality.

It should be noted that all humans have not always held a superior position over animals (in practice or under the law). The first animal abuse law was enacted in New York in 1828. In 1874 a child named Mary Ellen of New York City, severely abused, was determined to be a member of the animal kingdom. She was therefore able to receive relief through the help of the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

As recent as the last century, it was illegal to abuse or harm an animal but it was not illegal to abuse or inflict harm on one�s own child. In fact, the very first child abuse cases prosecuted in the United States were done so using animal cruelty laws, because no child abuse laws existed at the time. Using my esteemed opponents position of moral relativism (that the weaker and the inferior have no rights over those with more intelligence or more awareness) then we would still be living in a country where abusing one�s own child is not only legal � but moral.

A truly moral person has to recognize the responsibility of superiority and intelligence by refraining from taking advantage of the inferior, whether animal or human, otherwise they morally violate the very position they hold.

603 Words

My opponent would have you believe that animal abuse and child abuse are the same thing. Would it not be abuse to put a saddle on a child and ride him/her around? Would it not be abuse to keep a child in a cage? Apparently one third of the population of the United States is morally reprehensible for treating animals in these ways. Shame on you pet owners! Go turn yourselves in to the nearest authority immediately!

Obviously, I am being facetious. Riding a horse is not abuse. Keeping a hamster in a cage is not abuse. One cannot judge the treatment of animals and children, or any other human for that matter, with the same standard.

There is one primary difference that separates humans from animals, and that is the capacity to reason. It is this capacity that allowed early man to develop tools and weapons to establish his dominance over the animals. This cognitive ability also allowed us to develop, or comprehend, a moral standard, among other things. The question that has plagued philosophers and theologians for the past millennium is the source of this standard. Is there a universal moral code? A religious person would contend that the moral code is that set by God. An atheist would claim that society sets the moral standard, but as the old saying goes, �what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.� So is society's moral code an attempt to reach perfection? What is this perfection? Alas, morality is a topic that can send a sane man to a padded room.

If there is a simple, global standard for morality, then why are we debating this topic? If this were the case, then either it would be moral to perform testing with animals, or it wouldn't be. We have to make the assumption that the moral code is defined by man, and as such is constantly revised. Hence, moral relativism is a very real idea. If my opponent disagrees, then I beg he produce the �Universal Law of Morality� (and of course point out the applicable sections). I'm sure the judges would agree with me that the Cliff's Notes version would be acceptable given the word limit.

Under moral relativism, how is something deemed moral or immoral? A good rule of thumb is the Golden Rule, �do unto others as you would have them do unto you.� Unfortunately, this only applies to intra-human relationships, not human-animal relationships. The Golden Rule breaks down when one party does not abide, and since animals do not have the same capacity to reason humans do, they cannot apply the rule. So where does that leave us in determining the morality of an act upon animals? Essentially, we are free to decide as we wish. Society has decided that certain acts are immoral, such as causing undue suffering to an animal. Hence animal cruelty laws were enacted. Society has also determined that human life is more important than animal life. As such, it is moral to perform medical tests with animals.

514 words

My opponent asked for a �universal law of morality� specifically on the subject of moral relativism, I have provided that definition, found at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[1] �Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.�

[1]�A common objection, though probably more so outside philosophy than within it, is that MMR cannot account for the fact that some practices such as the holocaust in Germany or slavery in the United States are obviously objectively wrong. This point is usually expressed in a tone of outrage, often with the suggestion that relativists pose a threat to civilized society�

With alternatives to animal testing available, [2] the recognition through law [3] and strict guidelines put in place to force lab scientists and technicians to prove that alternatives to animal testing have been fully investigated prior to any study involving animals have been documented. The case can be made that society as a whole has judged the arbitrary �right� of humans to do with animals as they please to be an immoral undertaking.

The assertion put forth that animals possess no reason I offer this in response,

[4] It is argued, the lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of respect. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to act rationally. Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or sexism. The right to be treated with respect rests, rather, on a creature's being a "subject of a life," with certain experiences, preferences, and interests. Animals, like humans, are subjects of a life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) a philosopher held that strict morality was the effect ones actions had on him/herself and was not inclusive of others definitions. With that in mind my opponent would suggest that one could feel perfectly obliged to test the new brand of hairspray in your pets eyes to make sure it was not irritating before use without any moral qualms. Mr. Kant and I disagree and say you most definitely would not do this to your pet because you attach value and respect to your animal. If your animal deserves moral respect and value why would you not extend this respect to all animals? To do otherwise is discrimination is it not?

It was said that animal cruelty laws were enacted to protect animals from this form of treatment, let us all agree that those laws were enacted for moral reasons. My opponent asserts that unsanctioned cruelty is immoral but sanctioned cruelty is perfectly OK in a moral sense, he wants it both ways. That very line of reasoning in relation to morality is what the author at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was referring to when it was said �MMR cannot account for the fact that some practices such as the holocaust in Germany or slavery in the United States are obviously objectively wrong�. It can also be said that with alternatives available it is not morally justified to continue the practice of using animals for lab testing. The fact that animals are used in this fashion in no way demonstrates morality � rather it demonstrates immorality couched in necessity.


Beagle used in burn experiment

In an admittedly unscientific attempt to gauge morality I asked 14 friends, coworkers and family two differing questions about this picture. The first was �is it ok to burn this dog in a lab if it saved a life?� The prevalent answer was, �Only if absolutely required and there is no other choice� �That�s sickening do they really do that�

The second question was, �If an alternative existed, was it right to burn this dog for the medical knowledge gained?� Unequivocally everyone said in differing words �No way�

This small sample indicates that if people are aware of a choice they will without a doubt pick the correct moral path.

[1] plato.stanford.edu...
[2] caat.jhsph.edu...
[3] altweb.jhsph.edu...
[4] www.scu.edu...

800 words

I agree with my opponent, that everyone and everything is due their respect. However, respect is not an idea universally applied to all living things. I respect a person's right to eat in the same restaurant as me; I do not give his dog the same respect. Respect is a very broad subject, and care must be taken as to who or what is being respected, and to what capacity that respect is being applied.

I respect a cow's right to life, insofar as that respect does not keep me from eating a burger.

I respect a tree's right to life, insofar as that respect does not keep me from being sheltered from the elements.

A logical extension of my opponent's argument is that since there are alternatives to the aforementioned examples (vegetarians live without meat and artificial construction materials are plentiful), that it is immoral to kill a cow for food or chop down a tree. There are those who would argue this is the case, but I ask, where does it end? My opponent has argued that the differences between humans and animals are insufficient to allow different standards to be applied to the treatment of different species, so I beg to know the differences between animals and plants that do allow such different standards. Perhaps it is immoral to chop down a tree for lumber, but then too it is immoral to harvest a stalk of wheat for food. Does human morality preclude us from eating? Certainly not! To the contrary, by most people's standards it would be immoral for me not to eat, given the opportunity � suicide is illegal in most nations, is it not?

My opponent has tried to curry favor for his side by showing an emotionally stirring photograph. Unfortunately, without a source, it is unknown as to the specific test that was being conducted. Certainly there was a reason as to why that beagle was used for such a test, some requirement that precluded the use of another method. Perhaps people would not be so disgusted if they knew the background behind the picture. Would the picture be received the same if that were a rat that had been used? What if a test was conducted with another �vermin� such as a spider? Approximately 95% of laboratory animal tests are conducted with mice or rats bred for that purpose. Less than half of a percent is composed of non-human primates, dogs, and cats. [1]

It goes without saying that there are far less noble purposes under which a rat or insect could be killed. People set out traps for rats in their city apartments, and nobody thinks twice about squashing a spider (unless they have a cockroach problem � big spiders love cockroaches!). Animals being used for testing are helping to improve the quality of life and further the human race, and that, without question, is a moral undertaking.

References:
1. Americans for Medical Progress (www.amprogress.org...)

496 words

Let us be clear here. My opponent�s sole point in this debate can be simplified down to this: �We have the right to make animals suffer in lab testing because we are superior. Our superiority stems from our ability to reason, and thus � we can REASON that our use of animals in this way benefits US (the superior) and is therefore moral.�

Come on! Is this the best he can do?

1. Can my opponent PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that animals do not reason? If this is the sole factor separating �us� from �them� � then I fear he has not done an adequate job of convincing either myself or our readers of this assertion.
Using my two cats as an example, they have demonstrated the ability to give and recognize affection, know when people do not like them plus the ability to learn when they are wrong, hardly unreasoning creatures are they.
2. Can my opponent PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the ability to reason and one�s intellectual or physical superiority are adequate predicators of moral superiority?

The true �debate� that exists here is not whether it is right or wrong (or even necessary) to use animals in testing, but rather... it is moral? My opponents entire argument has rested on the simple assertion that the species with the most power has the right to not only torture other species, but that this is a moral action as well. This is moral relativism!

I have demonstrated that moral relativism is the concept that has gotten the human race into the holocaust, ethnic cleanings, and genocide. There are very few moral persons on this planet that would agree that superiority over a thing grants the right to make that thing suffer for the greater good. We have not argued the necessity of that action � but whether or not it is MORAL.

It is my assertion that society as a whole (through enacted laws) and the scientific community itself (through the three R�s) have already agreed that animal testing is IMMORAL. Let us be clear here. The topic of this debate is not, �Should we ever use animals in testing?� The question is clearly, �Is it moral to do so?�

My position is very clear, it is morally wrong to conduct experiments on animals. The moral position of this argument does not change under any circumstance. Even if that circumstance is to benefit the human race. Furthermore, to perform heinous experiments on innocent animals when other alternatives exists is both horrific and immoral.

427 words

I thank my opponent for summing up my position so concisely. It is our ability to reason that allows us to determine the morality of an action. It is our ability to reason that makes us superior to the animals, and it is this superiority that makes a human life more valuable than an animal life. If my opponent believes he can do better, I challenge him to use his closing statement to argue my side of this debate.

1. Can my opponent PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that animals do not reason?

Thank you, I thought you would never ask. The answer is, no, I cannot, but my good friend Webster can:

Reason - The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires.

(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Phoenix, but your cats are not reasoning creatures. They are acting upon instincts and the �lower cognitive faculties.�

The true �debate� that exists here is not whether it is right or wrong (or even necessary) to use animals in testing, but rather... it is moral?

Once again, I turn to my trustful buddy Noah:

morals - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

(ibid.)

The very crux of this issue is whether it is right or wrong to use animals in testing. Not just any testing, I should add, but testing products or medicines that are beneficial to humans. Since my opponent has failed to produce an absolute code of morality, we must assume that moral relativism is the driving principle. Yes, moral relativism could be blamed for the holocaust. Christianity could be blamed for the crusades. Islam could be blamed for modern terrorism. One cannot use misapplications of an ideal to proclaim said ideal as evil.

I have demonstrated the inherent superiority of man over animal. The key point to take from this argument is that human life is to be valued more highly than animal life. As such, I profess that it is moral to use animals to advance the human condition. I close my side of this debate with a quote from Charles Darwin in a letter to a Swedish professor:

I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. ...I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind.

Phoenix, it has been an honor to debate such a controversial topic with you. Again, I thank Kano and the judges for taking their time to make this debate possible. Finally, I thank the reader for patiently following these proceedings.

500 words

Must I be forced to repeat might does not make right, How many times down through history has this saying proved to be true?

My opponent�s entire moral position has been predicated on this one position throughout this debate. According to this line of logic anything at all is morally correct as long as it can be demonstrated it has a beneficial effect. Slavery, genocide, murder and other unspeakable acts, this is as an immoral position as one can take when debating morals as I have ever seen.

To make the claim and introduce an outdated reference to a Webster�s dictionary reference in a closing statement meant to review the debates existing evidence is disingenuous at best and an attempt to introduce new argument where it is not appropriate to make new issues,

As to my opponent�s assertions that Darwin has an effect on this moral argument about animal testing in laboratories.

I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. ...I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind.

Had Darwin known of the modern alternatives he would have ruled differently
One must put Darwin�s words in perspective of the times when no other alternatives existed.

Today alternatives do in fact exist making conventional animal lab testing a morally questionable act. This is not only questionable by groups opposed to testing but also by the scientists involved in the very testing iself.

The mighty horn has sounded and the judging hordes are about to descend upon this debate. Results in a few days.

Ok, took a little longer than I'd hoped, but the results are in.

Phoenix defeats PurdueNuc by a margin of 6-3. Excellent job by both competitors.

Judges Comments:

Excellent debate on an otherwise difficult topic. I congratulate both for their time and their extensive arguments for and against. Great job.

Good job by both but better argument construction all around from Phoenix.

Phoenix wins.

This proved to be a very interesting and thought-provoking debate. ATS is most fortunate to attract people of such calibre, although I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, as ATS is a very fine board!

The topic produced lots of discussion about ethics, morality and philosophy. I felt Phoenix had the slightly better grasp of this material than PurdueNuc (who, by his own admission asks us to “…grant this humble engineer some patience as he stumbles blindly through this unknown territory…”.

I would have liked to have seen more discussion from both combatants about the alternatives that can be used instead of animal testing, both pro and anti the motion, as this would have – perhaps – enabled PurdueNuc to concentrate on empirical, scientific evidence eg LD50 tests, etc. which might better have suited his engineering background?? By omitting this, I believe he may have missed an opportunity to "level the playing field"??

However, all this augurs well for “Round 3”, as the debating prowess of these two contestants verify!!

To re-iterate, Phoenix clinches the round but kudos and thanx to PurdueNuc for a riveting debate!! And thanx to both for having such a stimulating discussion!!

both debators did an amazing job on this one, and the choice is pretty hard. i have to say that PurdueNuc won this one though because of his conclusion. the arguments in the debate seemed pretty well balanced until the very end.

Very tough one guys, take it easy on us poor judges. PurdueNuc just edged it for me but also very well done to Phoenix.

I feel a bit sorry for PurdueNuc. He had to defend the more difficult side of the argument. But even this consideration can't change one losing a debate to one winning a debate. It can only decide debate that are almost a draw. Reading all the posts with all the arguments, I can only choose Phoenix as the winner.

A good debate. PurdueNuc faced an uphill battle from the start and did very well making his point. However, I felt that Phoenix made a broader and better overall argument throughout. Kudos to both.

Good luck Phoenix in Round 3.