Animal testing – pro? Am I a monster? according to PEDA.

My assigned topic is Animal testing a very tough argument; the pro side as well true ethically cruel topic to get.  The subject does not bother me much, and I could go for both side but prefer this one more logical support compared to emotional. I know very little about this topic besides the basics, but can see the use in animal testing. When looking it up on google  you see some PETA(People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) articles and mostly sources for the con. With makes research very difficult, and hard to find good sources. The logical approach is looking at how it has helped us improve medicine, and many other products. The con can also use stats on animals killed each year.Ethics would be supporting the con mostly, but it would be affecting animal not humans for a pro side support. Yes, you can call me greedy. Emotionally, the pro appeals to how many lives where saved due to the advancements, so The emotions appeal apply to joy of a family member or close friend being saved. Other would argue that the animals feel things and it is cruel and unethical. Witch is a valid point! For this to work I will have to focus on more human success, and ignore all the suffering animals. In other words becoming the enemy of PETA. Witch mind i remind you seem to have odd values, Ever see PETAs version of Pokemon..? They have very strange values,  but they do have a valid points in this topic.

My outlook or prediction on how the debate will go is, the person will use emotional appeals and ethical appeals mostly. Making it simple to refute with logic, and statics. Although I will be ready for some logical points and research on the con side to poke at there argument. Hopefully I don’t go up against someone who will not underestimate this side of the argument, “no one is that much of a monster.”  One thing I can say is I got some work ahead of me, everyone seems to be against my side here.


Current Issues of 2018 wait 2019…?

When debating typically, there is a tough issue. Sometimes it is better to avoid larger conflicts for example discussing trump, so this helps minimize personal feelings on the matter and more facts are presented. Lighter topics tend  to be less personal and determined, but they allow for people to gather a fresh support biased on proven facts. I my self would say Brexit, do you support it or not? should great Britain exit the European Union? Brexit is a more logical issue since I would bet most people did not have much time to think about it leaving just facts. A US biased option that I am begrudged to say; would be immigration, but that is a highly opinionated issue, in particulate the border wall? This one could go many ways purely biased on the persons feelings on immigration, this leans more towards ethical and emotional appeal with few points of logic to it.  a Global issue, should the US help fight terrorism, or just ignore it? Terrorism is a hard subject to judge being there are so many takes on. It could end up more logical referencing the past, as they say we learn for the past. I have yet to devolve a solid defense for any of these issues being I am not a fan of news and current issues. Living under a rock is great better then arguing about politics or religion. You can not be biased if you know nothing of an issue.

The past school year was filled with being late on assignments, but there was some good. It was very chaotic if you ask me. What I should work on the most is getting assignments in on time; it has caused me many issues lately. This week I could care about assignments and do them early, a simple fix, probably will not do it. The only reason for me not to do this is shier laziness, so I am even shocked that this is going to be done on time as well. To be frank I can not be bothered to care most of the time.