"Research using animals is essential to produce sufficient evidence efficacy and safety before proceeding to trials involving humans"

Because i agree with these words by the British medical association, I stand in firm negation of the resolution today which reads Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animals rights. My value for todays round is Morality which means sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment and my value criterion is Utilitarianism which is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. With that being being said i will provide definitions of the resolution upon request. I will now proceed to my case. Justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited REWARDS or punishments Requires: to claim or ask for by right and authority Recognition:special notice or attention Animal: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without CELLULOSE walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greaterDEGREE of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation Rights: legal duty imposed on another Observation one: The resolution is talking about animals in a general term but not as animals in the sense of humans. We can already assume that humans need rights and live on standards of morality and in this debate we are strictly focusing on animal other then humans. If the affirmative brings on any arguments stating that humans are animals will be thrown out simply for the matter of we all already know that humans possess rights, animals on the other hand do not. Which is the main focus of todays debate. Contention one: Rights are something that Humans have portrayed and made necessary in their world Sub point A: Animal dont live by the means of right or wrong. They basically live for the means of survival. They dont realize their means of existence until it is threatened. For a humans we have the aura of rights. We need rights to establish boundaries and when these boundaries are established we understand the boundaries. Animals do not understand how to establish these rights, morals, boundaries, laws, etc. Animal boundaries are established by their natural instincts but if a human went with their natural instincts it would be easy to assume that there would be much chaos. Rights are established by humans for humans. So why would it be important that an animal has

rights. They dont understand what rights are and giving them rights would do no benefit to the human or animal. Obviously we should treat animals in respect but not in the terms of giving them rights that a human possess. Sub point B: Define rights In todays debate the resolution does not strictly limit what rights, how many rights, or what types of right should be recognized to animals. So as for the affirmative to make them equal to humans, animals should be granted every right that the individual human possess. Including the right to sue. Humans as a whole have the right to sue, and every right is protected by the possibility of being sued. As humans i can sue for sexual harassment, robbery, dishonesty and the possibilities go on and on and on because justice is available for every human. Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited REWARDS or punishments which basically means that within conflicts there will an administrator which will decide on what is right. In these decisions we have people with both sides who can articulate and defend themselves or at least people to represent themselves in the matter of court, and since animal cannot rewarding them with rights would again give no benefit to society. On top of that people would sue others for unessacary justice. For example if you hit a deer on the road would the deer sue you for accidently hitting them, or would you sue the deer because they decided to run across the road as your driving? Neither, it would be considered an accident. If animals were given rights in the legal system humans wouldnt get anything for lawsuit and the animal wouldn't be able to sue. For an animal they cannot sue, they cannot protect their rights

Contention two: Animals are needed to advance in Science Through out history animals have been a big help into our anatomy. Go all the way back into history where the Greeks would open up bodies of deceased animals and figure out the parts of the body, and go to the mid nineteen hundreds where animal experimenting played a key role to advance the human population forward and being able to become immune to life threatening diseases, For example we have had many medical break throughs with animals such as Penicillin which was tested by mice in 1940, medicine for tuberculosis which was first tested on guinea pigs, Kidney transplants which techniques were found by using dogs and pigs, the vaccine for polio was found by testing on monkeys and mice, and even insulin for diabetes was found by being tested on dogs first! So obviously we needed animals to have these medicines be tested on. In human morals we would rather prefer that the human life is saved over the animals life and if we can save the human life over the animal life we will. Now we havent made advances in just medical science but as well as astronomical science. The first living thing to reach outer space were some fruit flies, and following that was a dog names Lyka. With sending these animals to outer space we were able to understand survival, what was necessary for

our space crafts to be able to withstand, how long will we be able to survive with out air, and etc. If instead of the dog Lyka, we would have lost a life of another human. Now going off, why is a human life more important then an animal life. Simply because humans are moral agents whereas animals are not, yes animals are not at intellectual as humans, but we don't test on them because of that, we test of them because testing on another human would be immoral. I will now proceed with attacking my opponents case.