13/12/2015 at 19:43 #594
Thank you Arnis and Eirini…and thank you also to all the members of your teams.
Just a step forward and the debate will come to an end.
We are all betting for you…for all of you!
14/12/2015 at 10:17 #599
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by María Salgado.
I am starting this speech referring to your example: penicillin.
I would like to remind that Alexander Fleming in 1929 set aside
penicillin for a decade, as experiments on rabbits had “proved”
the drug was useless. Years later, desperate, he administered
the drug to a dying patient. The rest is history. Fleming himself
admitted later the misleading results from animal testing.
Statistics, not us, have proven since then the unreliability of
animal testing. And we are now in 2015.
We have the scientific knowledge and the technological means
to carry out medical research without torturing animals, and
that was our first argument, clearly elaborated by our first speaker.
About your second point, it seems to me that you misinterpret
our arguments. We are talking about ethics, life, humanism.
We really don’t think that selling pets can be compared to the
cruelty of animal abuse in laboratories. As for animals bred
for food, that is a totally different topic, which could be discussed
separately, as it has nothing to do with animal testing.
You seem to forget what we have also described in our second
speech: infecting with diseases, burning skin, poisoning, blinding,
paralyzing, causing brain damage, restraining, isolating, electric
shocks, death is the reality animals live in laboratories.
In conclusion, I would like to remind that more and more
universities, national health institutes and researchers announce
they are retiring the animals they use in the next 2-3 years.
In 2013 EU banned all cosmetics tested on animals. The road
to banning all animal experimentation is now open.
Thank you very much!
261 words15/12/2015 at 13:18 #604
We had a very interesting debate. So, I will
summarize the debate and explain why my
team thinks that animal testing for medical
research should not be banned.
Firstly I’ll start with our teams 1st speaker’s thought
that no computer or scientist can really predict how
medical treatment will affect a living organism.
And this is where our case clashed with the opponents,
in a point of dispute – Which method would be better to use?
The clash was between our teams 1st speaker’s thought mentioned previously
and affirmative team’s answer
in the Q&
A part saying that we could use computer modeling
or test on human cells. But by using
these methods we don’t see the direct effect
medicine has on living organisms, what is
the main reason why we use animals when
testing new medicine, by banning animal
testing we don’t resolve anything It will
only limit our capabilities when there
is so much yet to discover.
Secondly like the affirmative team said animals
have feelings and should be treated like humans,
and our team supports animal rights. But we
live in a world where 90% of the population
uses animals for many things like clothing,
hunting trophies, but there are ways that
animals help humans to survive and those
are the animals we use for food and medical
researches by that animals serve a greater
good saving billions of people from suffering.
So as long as our society is ready to fully
respect animal rights or there is developped
100% reliable and accurate alternative,
animal testing for medical use should not
Words:26815/12/2015 at 21:43 #608
Thanks Christina and Vineta. Thanks you all!
This has been the final touch to an excellent debate. Something like a cherry on the cake :))17/12/2015 at 10:24 #612
1ST ONLINE DEBATE
DISPUTE, DISCUSS, DEVELOP (ERASMUS+ KA2)
Affirmative: Greek team
Negative: Latvian team
Moderator: Spanish team
Judges: Hungarian team
Resolution: Animal testing for medical research should be banned.
Our working method as judges consisted of holding two meetings before and after the debate itself.
During the first meeting, we collected the arguments
for both sides that we anticipated to appear
at the debate and discussed what research
has to be done in the topic. Between the meetings,
we watched videos (this one, for instance,
is quite useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD51eAOPSKc), researched the internet and
asked for material from our science teacher.
After the debate, we read the “speeches”, questions
and answers together, and analyzed them.
We took notes, based on which the teachers have written
the detailed evaluation of the speakers.
All in all, we were very satisfied with the outcome
of the debate. We enjoyed reading the heated
discussions and the clear and well-structured argumentations. While analyzing your argumentation,
we also engaged in loud discussions.
We feel that we certainly got a clearer picture of the considerations lying beneath the issue.
We also liked that all the texts were written with
a very high-quality English and that everything was
posted before the deadline.
We have only one suggestion, which really does not only come from the teachers.
Namely, that we would like to encourage the indication of sources (not necessarily like in a thesis or paper,
but at least names, numbers, other data).
Although we know from experience how hard it is to get statistics, for example, for this topic,
this is especially important in the case of a scientific topic where empirical information is central
to an authentic discussion. We also think that in a written debate, it is even easier to provide our sources.
Last but not least, we would like to thank you
(students and teachers who helped) for your hard work.
We really appreciate all the effort you made during
this online debate. And an even bigger thanks goes
to those who had to work during the weekend.
All of you did a great job! And we would also like to
thank the moderating Spanish team for the resolution
and for carefully following the course of the event.
In what follows, please find our evaluations of
the individual speakers (and the final result, in the end):
Speaker A1: Our first online debate was given a great start with a precise and elaborate text from the first speaker of the affirmative team,
who successfully completed her job as Speaker A1 by introducing the topic,
giving their definition of the central concept and announcing the structure
of their argumentation. She also describes the team’s first argument, namely that “it is quite possible,
if not certain” that medical progress is delayed because the results of animal experiments are misleading. Here, despite the examples,
we sense a certain degree of hesitation, which disappears later, in the course of the team’s argumentation.
Still, we never get empirical data (or maybe a quote from a scientist) on what percentage of the medical experiments involving animals actually
prove to bring misleading results. We also lacked the indication of sources in case of the other examples.
Her answer to Speaker N3’s question is well-informed and clear.
Speaker A2: She picks up the threads by saying that the reliability of animal testing is a misconception,
but does not support her claim with a source, either.
However, she continues with a very strong set of arguments focusing on animal rights.
She successfully incorporates her reactions to the previous claims of the debate during the elaboration of her thoughts.
She provides a coherent and clearly structured text.
She seems to be deeply involved in the issue and uses effective rhetorical devices to display her argumentation.
Yet, some points seem a bit far-fetched, e.g “after a life of pain, they are killed”, especially if we read the very strict ethics codes
concerning animal testing
of medical institutes and universities.
Speaker A3: The concluding speaker of the affirmative team started out with a great move telling the whole story of penicillin in reaction
to the previous answer.
She continues with a smart and focused summary of the team’s argumentation never failing to refer back to the course of the debate.
Then, she finishes with a point of information, which crowns their argumentation, envisioning and supporting their claim that once
in the future animal testing
can really be excluded from medical research.
Though by naming some of those universities and institutes, this would have been even more convincing.
Speaker N1: The first speaker of the contradicting team gave a lengthy, stylish text; obviously
he could well identify with the argument that animal testing for medical purposes is useful.
He is a competent writer, uses the arguments of A1, and his rebuttal is trying to be consistent, his structure is generally effective.
However, he also uses in his argumentation “cancer”, and it is left unclear, whether the animal testing on cancer treatment is effective or not,
as just like the previous speaker, he does not provide data and sources of his claims. He makes some mistakes (rebottle) but these
do not undermine his argumentation, which is clear and comprehensible.
Speaker N2: The second speaker of the contradicting team gives a very well-structured argumentation,
relying on the issues raised by the previous speakers.
It is very relevant that he uses actual examples and highlights the reality of our relation to animals,
questioning the much-argued ethical argument.
He maintains his own opinion and replies some of the powerful arguments of the other team, refuting them. Nevertheless the results
of a possible ban on animal testing seems to be a speculation,
and it is not supported by any sources.
Speaker N3: The last speaker of the contradicting team starts with a very elaborate summary,
highlighting the main points of the debate. She enumerates all the previous arguments, but she does not give any reliable evidence.
Does the data she uses come from an actual source?
The final outcome and conclusion of the debate is articulated but not clearly elaborated.
Affirmative team – total: 81 out of 90
Negative team – total: 73 out of 90
So the WINNER is … the Affirmative side!!!
Congratulations, Greek team!
And one more thing: we are really looking forward to meeting you in person in Spain!17/12/2015 at 12:00 #616
I must say thanks to Hungarian team for your evaluation, you have done good job, and congratulations to Greek team.
But I think the biggest problem with this debate
is word limit, this is a reason why our arguments
have lack of evidences. As a negative team it is
much harder to bring evidences and give more
analysis in our speeches , because we have
to respond to everything that has been said before.
Even affirmative team can’t extend their case
as well as they could. We can barely explain
our ideas and that’s why lots of things sound like speculations.
Secondly, thirds speakers shouldn’t bring new
evidences in their speeches, they can only refer
to things that have already happened in a debate.
Sometimes it is fine that last speaker respond to
what second speakers have said, but without new information.All in all we had a nice debate
with a good arguments and this topic was debatable,
but if we want to make this more structured and get
more explained arguments some things must changed.
After all it is great that we are learning to engage
with other people from different places.
Peace from Latvia. Edgars out.
17/12/2015 at 12:40 #617
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Andromachi Pantazi.
Thank you, Edgars, for your valuable comments.
It is great to hear remarks from someone who has
hands-on experience. Your ideas are very useful,
and we are definitely going to take them into
consideration in our next teachers’ meeting.
As this project is a learning process for all of
us including teachers, we would like to encourage
the other speakers to share their experience, difficulties
and ideas concerning this online debate form.
Also, we do understand that the position of the
negative team is a difficult one. Therefore, it was really difficult to make the decision.
We are looking forward to hearing from all of you,
Judit & Ági, teachers from Hungary
17/12/2015 at 23:09 #620
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Andromachi Pantazi.
On behalf of the Greek team, I would like to thank you for this exquisite occurence that we experienced
the past few days. Short-termed yet wonderful! I wish to note that the Latvian team did a tremendous
job and presented some serious arguments. A huge special thanks to the judges as well and all the people
that took part in this debate!
We are all looking forward to meeting you in person!
The Greek team17/12/2015 at 23:21 #621
Thank you very much Hungarian team for your evaluation and your comments,
I personaly will take them into serious consideration. Also I must say that
the Latvian team were a very good opponent to discuss this topic with.
This has been a wonderful and unique experience , I am very happy and excited
to be a part of this project and it is only the beginning! Me and my team are looking forward to
go and meet other participants next year in Hungary and have a debate in person with the other students.21/12/2015 at 17:30 #624
I totally agree with the previous comments, to follow this debate was really exciting and engaging. We have learned a lot from it, not just about the topic itself, but the method too. So as Judit, I also encourage all of you to do as Edgars and comment and share you experiences about the preparation, and how you think we could make this debate more meaningful. Thank you!
The topic ‘DEBATE: Animal testing for medical research should be banned’ is closed to new replies.