I’d like to open up as always by taking a moment to thank MemoryShock and the rest of the ATS debate staff for organizing this wonderful event.
I’d also like to wish my esteemed opponent, chissler, all the best in our debate. Let’s try to have some fun.
"It is Ethical To Use Repeat Felons For Experimentation With Or Without Their Consent."
Ladies and gentlemen, we find ourselves facing a very interesting and treacherous debate topic. We have been presented with the task of debating what
may appear to be a very ambiguous subject, and much of what we discuss in this debate will depend on the direction we choose to follow.
Over the course of this debate, we will need to examine several things.
First we must ask ourselves what ethical truly means. We will need to determine what constitutes ethical and unethical behavior before we can even
begin to answer the question posed to us.
Second, we will need to discover what is truly meant by the word experimentation. There are several ways this could be interpreted, and we must
examine them all.
Lastly, we will need to approach this topic though the lenses of both consensual and non-consensual experimentation.
As you can see, there are several aspects to our debate topic which could be interpreted in different fashions by different individuals. If a
consensus cannot be reached on the meanings of these things, then a clear decision may be harder to reach.
Nevertheless, by the end of our discussion it will be apparent that the experimentation of repeat felons is in fact ethical behavior.
Before I turn the floor over to my opponent, I’d like to take a quick moment to address one of the main issues surrounding our topic.
Exactly what is ethical?
According to Merriam-Webster, ethics are defined as the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
Interesting isn’t it?
Given this definition of ethics, are we to approach our debate from a position in which we ask ourselves if experimentation of repeat felons is good
or bad? Or should we approach it from a place in which we ask ourselves if the experimentation of repeat felons could be considered a moral obligation
or duty?
As I will show you, this all depends on what types of experimentation we are dealing with.
If the experimentation of these criminals could lead to discoveries that could cure disease or greatly improve the lives of others, do we not have a
moral obligation to seek such advancements, through any means necessary?
It is questions such as these that I will continue to pose throughout this debate in order to prove beyond doubt that it is in fact ethical to use
repeat felons for experimentation.
Round 2: nyk537 vs chissler: Guinea Criminals?, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times
reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 05:35 PM by chissler
Tugging on heart strings? Traps? An interesting response from my opponent. Hardly am I attempting to tug at the strings of any of our readers.
What I am going to do is present the facts and paint the clear picture of what it is we are dealing with. As my opponent manipulates the topic and
attempts to offer definitions that suits his position, I'll be sure to offer as much transparency, as I truly see it, throughout this debate.
I'm going to begin this first rebuttal with a response to my opponent's recent post and then move forward with my position.
I'm glad we agree that the justice system has its' failures. My opponent will have you ignore these in an attempt to illustrate what it is he wants you to hear. But in doing so, he concedes the failures of the justice system and it's willingness to convict innocent men. As we proceed through this response and this debate, I will be touching on the concept of "repeat offender".
Since we're at it, let's touch on it now.
If a man is convicted of a crime, what baggage does he carry with him for the rest of his life? A criminal record. And since we're dealing with the term "felony", let us take a moment to clearly define it.
As shown here, the definition of a felony is quite simply a serious crime. Listed here you can see a plethora of examples of various felonies that citizens can be charged with. Hopefully now my opponent sees that I am not trying to paint a picture of jaywalkers being persecuted. However, what I am seeing in this list is a list of crimes that every year too many innocent men and women are sent to prison on. If we consider for a second if an innocent man or woman is standing in a court room before a judge and jury having been charged with a serious offense, and they were to have a criminal record, the likelihood of them receiving a fair shake is hardly reasonable. What I speak of here is a man or woman who was guilty of a crime in the past. They did their time and paid their debt to society. At some point in the future they are once again brought up on charges that they are in fact not guilty of. The system is even more likely to fail them now as they'll consider them a high risk offender. An unlikely scenario you may be thinking? Consider how many citizens are and have been convicted of these crimes and are walking the street. Now how many of them are facing second charges? If in the hundreds of thousands of people that fit this demograph, only a handful are truly innocent and wind up persecuted. They would qualify for this program that my opponent supports. And they would be experimented on against their will.
It is completely unethical.
I have taken the time to consider how unethical it is to partake in such an action against potentially innocent men and women. I will now take that same stance with those who are in fact guilty and are actually repeat offenders. Our justice system is based on just that, justice. Justice is not revenge or unlawful punishment. If a person is guilty of a crime, they deserve to be punished with what fits. If it is life in prison, probation or even a death sentence, the necessary sentence will be handed down by those in charge. The logistics of the punishments handed down is certainly open to interpretation but that discussion is for another time and place.
In developed countries around the world and throughout history, who has supported the experimentation and torture of individuals against their will? Nobody has. Why? Because it is unethical and people will not stand for it.
Put them in a prison cell or condemn them to death. These are the harshest punishments handed out by developed justice systems. Why? Because it is the most that any body of government can do within the limitations of our moral compasses and ethical guidelines that we live by in a civilized world.
You know who would have supported the program my opponent speaks of? A program where those deemed unworthy are used as seen fit. Adolph Hitler. Hitler and ethics are not quite synonymous.
Pain is not a factor in the equation. We have basic human rights and an action that denies these basic human rights is unethical. No questions ask. It is a simple fact that you are ignoring.
My opponent has stated that the potential "negatives" in experimentation are not what we are here to talk about. Unfortunately, it is a part of it. It is the part of it that I intend to discuss. I thought my opponent would take the time to show the opposite side of the coin, however he has not. He has merely stated that what I am talking about isn't what we are here to talk about. Yet.. he has yet to tell us his position. He's told you I'm wrong, but has failed to say why he is right.
If someone came into my house right now and said he wanted to experiment on me and wouldn't comment further, his ass would be to the curb. Would my opponent do the same?
Two words that I think are worth our consideration at this point.
My opponent quotes these utopian treatment plans where bad people are tested with good things to benefit the world. What my opponent fails to share with us are the side effects that are going to be evident in every test case and the potential risk we are opening these individuals up to. Even if the outcome of the test is a positive one, the side effects that may come with these unknown chemicals pose a great risk. And using these men and women as guinea pigs for this line of treatment is absolutely unethical.
Let's say the program would save some lives. We would have no possibly way of knowing it at the time, but for discussion.. let's say in the long run it would work out. We'd consider ourselves lucky and thankful for the lives we saved in the long run.
HOWEVER, it would not imply that the initial program was ethical. The fact remains, regardless of the final outcome, that the program is completely unethical. And any conclusion that is drawn at the end is going to have absolutely no bearing on how ethically sound the initial plan was.
It violates basic human rights, it is unethical.
I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent.
SQ1. Would you volunteer innocent men and women for these programs?
SQ2. In a yes or no format, is the denial of our basic human rights unethical? Elaborate if you wish, but please answer with a yes or no.
SQ3. Do you believe Hitler would support a program where humans were experimented on?
SQ4. If the participants of these programs died from side effects, would you consider it ethical?
SQ5. Without being a repeat felon, would you volunteer yourself for this program?
As we move forward with this debate, I will be touching on several points. It is my belief that if one is going to accept that these programs are ethical, than the variables should not be a factor. Whether they are a felon or not, whether the program is successful or not, none of these variables should factor in to whether or not the program is deemed ethical. World wide we have been offered basic human rights for a reason, and that reason was to fend of programs just as this one where a specific group of people are attempted to be persecuted in an unethical manner.
What my opponent supports is Apartheid for criminals.
I'll also be looking to hear from my opponent in future replies what exactly he considers torture to be. Since we disagree on these programs being a form of torture, I'm truly looking forward to what he has to say on the topic.
I need a drink though, so I'll exit stage left and offer the floor back to my opponent.
I'm going to begin this first rebuttal with a response to my opponent's recent post and then move forward with my position.
Putting the failings of our justice system aside for a moment, let’s take a look at the people to which our topic would affect.
I'm glad we agree that the justice system has its' failures. My opponent will have you ignore these in an attempt to illustrate what it is he wants you to hear. But in doing so, he concedes the failures of the justice system and it's willingness to convict innocent men. As we proceed through this response and this debate, I will be touching on the concept of "repeat offender".
So despite the best efforts of my opponent to make it seem as though we would be experimenting on possibly innocent people, we are only really dealing with repeatedly convicted felons.
Since we're at it, let's touch on it now.
If a man is convicted of a crime, what baggage does he carry with him for the rest of his life? A criminal record. And since we're dealing with the term "felony", let us take a moment to clearly define it.
As shown here, the definition of a felony is quite simply a serious crime. Listed here you can see a plethora of examples of various felonies that citizens can be charged with. Hopefully now my opponent sees that I am not trying to paint a picture of jaywalkers being persecuted. However, what I am seeing in this list is a list of crimes that every year too many innocent men and women are sent to prison on. If we consider for a second if an innocent man or woman is standing in a court room before a judge and jury having been charged with a serious offense, and they were to have a criminal record, the likelihood of them receiving a fair shake is hardly reasonable. What I speak of here is a man or woman who was guilty of a crime in the past. They did their time and paid their debt to society. At some point in the future they are once again brought up on charges that they are in fact not guilty of. The system is even more likely to fail them now as they'll consider them a high risk offender. An unlikely scenario you may be thinking? Consider how many citizens are and have been convicted of these crimes and are walking the street. Now how many of them are facing second charges? If in the hundreds of thousands of people that fit this demograph, only a handful are truly innocent and wind up persecuted. They would qualify for this program that my opponent supports. And they would be experimented on against their will.
It is completely unethical.
I have taken the time to consider how unethical it is to partake in such an action against potentially innocent men and women. I will now take that same stance with those who are in fact guilty and are actually repeat offenders. Our justice system is based on just that, justice. Justice is not revenge or unlawful punishment. If a person is guilty of a crime, they deserve to be punished with what fits. If it is life in prison, probation or even a death sentence, the necessary sentence will be handed down by those in charge. The logistics of the punishments handed down is certainly open to interpretation but that discussion is for another time and place.
In developed countries around the world and throughout history, who has supported the experimentation and torture of individuals against their will? Nobody has. Why? Because it is unethical and people will not stand for it.
Put them in a prison cell or condemn them to death. These are the harshest punishments handed out by developed justice systems. Why? Because it is the most that any body of government can do within the limitations of our moral compasses and ethical guidelines that we live by in a civilized world.
You know who would have supported the program my opponent speaks of? A program where those deemed unworthy are used as seen fit. Adolph Hitler. Hitler and ethics are not quite synonymous.
Torture? Wild operations and radical surgical procedures? Shock therapy?
Is that really the intent or the purpose of our topic, or could it be something a lot less sinister? Although the above mentioned things certainly can come to mind when thinking of experimentation, that is not what we are talking about here. My opponent implores you to consider how horrible it would be to experiment on someone’s son or daughter; but what if that experiment were not inherently harmful?
Pain is not a factor in the equation. We have basic human rights and an action that denies these basic human rights is unethical. No questions ask. It is a simple fact that you are ignoring.
My opponent has stated that the potential "negatives" in experimentation are not what we are here to talk about. Unfortunately, it is a part of it. It is the part of it that I intend to discuss. I thought my opponent would take the time to show the opposite side of the coin, however he has not. He has merely stated that what I am talking about isn't what we are here to talk about. Yet.. he has yet to tell us his position. He's told you I'm wrong, but has failed to say why he is right.
If someone came into my house right now and said he wanted to experiment on me and wouldn't comment further, his ass would be to the curb. Would my opponent do the same?
Two words that I think are worth our consideration at this point.
Side effects
My opponent quotes these utopian treatment plans where bad people are tested with good things to benefit the world. What my opponent fails to share with us are the side effects that are going to be evident in every test case and the potential risk we are opening these individuals up to. Even if the outcome of the test is a positive one, the side effects that may come with these unknown chemicals pose a great risk. And using these men and women as guinea pigs for this line of treatment is absolutely unethical.
Let's say the program would save some lives. We would have no possibly way of knowing it at the time, but for discussion.. let's say in the long run it would work out. We'd consider ourselves lucky and thankful for the lives we saved in the long run.
HOWEVER, it would not imply that the initial program was ethical. The fact remains, regardless of the final outcome, that the program is completely unethical. And any conclusion that is drawn at the end is going to have absolutely no bearing on how ethically sound the initial plan was.
It violates basic human rights, it is unethical.
I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent.
SQ1. Would you volunteer innocent men and women for these programs?
SQ2. In a yes or no format, is the denial of our basic human rights unethical? Elaborate if you wish, but please answer with a yes or no.
SQ3. Do you believe Hitler would support a program where humans were experimented on?
SQ4. If the participants of these programs died from side effects, would you consider it ethical?
SQ5. Without being a repeat felon, would you volunteer yourself for this program?
As we move forward with this debate, I will be touching on several points. It is my belief that if one is going to accept that these programs are ethical, than the variables should not be a factor. Whether they are a felon or not, whether the program is successful or not, none of these variables should factor in to whether or not the program is deemed ethical. World wide we have been offered basic human rights for a reason, and that reason was to fend of programs just as this one where a specific group of people are attempted to be persecuted in an unethical manner.
What my opponent supports is Apartheid for criminals.
I'll also be looking to hear from my opponent in future replies what exactly he considers torture to be. Since we disagree on these programs being a form of torture, I'm truly looking forward to what he has to say on the topic.
I need a drink though, so I'll exit stage left and offer the floor back to my opponent.
reply posted on 11-3-2009 @ 05:27 PM by chissler
Nowhere in any of my previous reply did I compare my opponent to Adolph Hitler. I'm confident my opponent is aware of this but yet has
clearly attempted to put one past our readers by twisting my words.
I've compared the experimentation program we are discussing with those that Hitler ran up to and throughout WWII. My opponent victimizing himself here is unfortunate. This is the last I will speak of this little ploy.
I'm going to be direct in this response but also attempting to keep from coming across as arrogant. But my opponent's previous reply was nothing more than a commentary of what I've presented thus far. He has completed over half of his debate and still has yet to present a sentence that supports his position. While I appreciate the commentary, I speak here as a plea to our readers to acknowledge the lack of a position that I am being offered to refute.
I'm going to skip over the commentary and respond to the answers my opponent responded with and then move forward with answering the Socratic questions posed.
In my first Socratic question, my opponent admits that he would volunteer innocent people to partake in these programs. Likely a wise answer to assert his position, but hardly an ethical one. The western civilization that we inhabit comes with clear ethics and clear laws, all of which any experimentation program against a persons' will would undoubtedly violate.
Secondly, I asked my opponent if the removal of a person's basic human right was unethical. I view this as a tough question to answer truthfully and yet maintain the position my opponent has been offered.
His response...
So to deny a person's basic human right is unethical. My opponent has agreed with this statement. However, he asserts that this program is not violating any basic human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Now let's list a few of these that are mentioned.
The topic of this debate asks whether or not it is ethical to experiment on people with or without their consent. So within the topic of this debate, it is my position to illustrate that it is unethical to experiment on an individual regardless of their consent.
My opponent concludes that none of the aforementioned are violated within such a program. I disagree.
Thirdly I asked if he felt Hitler would support one of these programs. He agrees that he would. That is a stamp of approval that I am certain is not being sought after. But if Hitler is a fan of your work, it might imply that what your doing is wrong. It's no secret that he was guilty of a few unethical behaviors.
In my fifth question, my opponent drops that he has given his consent to partake in such a program and doesn't feel he was violated. That's fine and dandy. But what if you didn't give your consent?
If an individual vehemently opposes an experiment being performed on his body and the experiment is still carried out, this is a violation of their basic human rights that I have previously outlined. My opponent, who is a supporter of this program, may be singing a different tune if he was not willing to be experimented on and yet didn't have a choice.
I will now respond to the Socratic questions posed by my opponent.
See here.
Robert Baltovich, Christopher Bates, Wilbert Coffin, William Mullins-Johnson, Romeo Phillion, Steven Truscott, Steven Truscott, Erin Walsh, Wilfred Beaulieu, Gordon Folland, Peter Frumusa, Clayton Johnson, Kulaveerasingam Karthiresu, Donald Marshall Jr, Richard McArthur, Michael McTaggart, Felix Michaud, Guy Paul Morin, Richard Norris, Wilson Nepoose, Benoit Proulx, Thomas Sophonow, Gary Staples and Donzel Young.
...just to name a few.
Most of these men had criminal records and then were convicted of a second crime and would qualify for the experimentation program we speak of. And all of these men were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. All of these men would have been subject to a program due to the failures of our justice system.
I am glad you asked.
Yes, I do. They most certainly did. However, if you steal from me and I steal from you, my actions are not justified. The act of stealing from you is just as wrong as your initial action. The removal of any basic human right is unethical, regardless of who did what in the past.
I will now pose my own Socratic questions.
SQ1. If someone does not give their consent to participate in this program, however is still forced to, is this an unethical action? If not, please specifically outline for me how it is ethical to force someone against their will.
SQ2. If the lasting effects of these programs were extremely debilitating to those being forced to bare the brunt of the experimentation, would you still consider it ethical?
SQ3. If it was confirmed that the specific experimentations were sinister and were extremely painful for those involved, would you consider it ethical, even though it was without the persons consent?
SQ4. Do you think these programs would ever make their way into American law as a means of replacing the prison system?
SQ5. Who governs these bodies who are doing the experimentation to ensure they are done with respect and dignity for the individuals?
Back to my opponent.
Originally posted by chissler
You know who would have supported the program my opponent speaks of? A program where those deemed unworthy are used as seen fit. Adolph Hitler. Hitler and ethics are not quite synonymous.
I've compared the experimentation program we are discussing with those that Hitler ran up to and throughout WWII. My opponent victimizing himself here is unfortunate. This is the last I will speak of this little ploy.
I'm going to be direct in this response but also attempting to keep from coming across as arrogant. But my opponent's previous reply was nothing more than a commentary of what I've presented thus far. He has completed over half of his debate and still has yet to present a sentence that supports his position. While I appreciate the commentary, I speak here as a plea to our readers to acknowledge the lack of a position that I am being offered to refute.
I'm going to skip over the commentary and respond to the answers my opponent responded with and then move forward with answering the Socratic questions posed.
In my first Socratic question, my opponent admits that he would volunteer innocent people to partake in these programs. Likely a wise answer to assert his position, but hardly an ethical one. The western civilization that we inhabit comes with clear ethics and clear laws, all of which any experimentation program against a persons' will would undoubtedly violate.
Secondly, I asked my opponent if the removal of a person's basic human right was unethical. I view this as a tough question to answer truthfully and yet maintain the position my opponent has been offered.
His response...
Yes I believe it is, but I fail to see how our topic in any way violates a basic human right.
So to deny a person's basic human right is unethical. My opponent has agreed with this statement. However, he asserts that this program is not violating any basic human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Now let's list a few of these that are mentioned.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile
The topic of this debate asks whether or not it is ethical to experiment on people with or without their consent. So within the topic of this debate, it is my position to illustrate that it is unethical to experiment on an individual regardless of their consent.
My opponent concludes that none of the aforementioned are violated within such a program. I disagree.
Thirdly I asked if he felt Hitler would support one of these programs. He agrees that he would. That is a stamp of approval that I am certain is not being sought after. But if Hitler is a fan of your work, it might imply that what your doing is wrong. It's no secret that he was guilty of a few unethical behaviors.
In my fifth question, my opponent drops that he has given his consent to partake in such a program and doesn't feel he was violated. That's fine and dandy. But what if you didn't give your consent?
If an individual vehemently opposes an experiment being performed on his body and the experiment is still carried out, this is a violation of their basic human rights that I have previously outlined. My opponent, who is a supporter of this program, may be singing a different tune if he was not willing to be experimented on and yet didn't have a choice.
I will now respond to the Socratic questions posed by my opponent.
SQ1 – Can you provide evidence of repeatedly convicted felons who were wrongly convicted on more than one occasion?
See here.
Robert Baltovich, Christopher Bates, Wilbert Coffin, William Mullins-Johnson, Romeo Phillion, Steven Truscott, Steven Truscott, Erin Walsh, Wilfred Beaulieu, Gordon Folland, Peter Frumusa, Clayton Johnson, Kulaveerasingam Karthiresu, Donald Marshall Jr, Richard McArthur, Michael McTaggart, Felix Michaud, Guy Paul Morin, Richard Norris, Wilson Nepoose, Benoit Proulx, Thomas Sophonow, Gary Staples and Donzel Young.
...just to name a few.
Most of these men had criminal records and then were convicted of a second crime and would qualify for the experimentation program we speak of. And all of these men were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. All of these men would have been subject to a program due to the failures of our justice system.
I am glad you asked.
SQ2 – Do you believe that the victims of the felons had their basic human rights violated?
Yes, I do. They most certainly did. However, if you steal from me and I steal from you, my actions are not justified. The act of stealing from you is just as wrong as your initial action. The removal of any basic human right is unethical, regardless of who did what in the past.
I will now pose my own Socratic questions.
SQ1. If someone does not give their consent to participate in this program, however is still forced to, is this an unethical action? If not, please specifically outline for me how it is ethical to force someone against their will.
SQ2. If the lasting effects of these programs were extremely debilitating to those being forced to bare the brunt of the experimentation, would you still consider it ethical?
SQ3. If it was confirmed that the specific experimentations were sinister and were extremely painful for those involved, would you consider it ethical, even though it was without the persons consent?
SQ4. Do you think these programs would ever make their way into American law as a means of replacing the prison system?
SQ5. Who governs these bodies who are doing the experimentation to ensure they are done with respect and dignity for the individuals?
Back to my opponent.
reply posted on 14-3-2009 @ 06:18 AM by chissler
I would like to take a moment to truly emphasize the term "experiment" and what exactly it entails for us in this debate. An experiment is really
an unknown, because no matter what anyone says the conclusion can only be speculated as it is an experiment that is being conducted. These men and
women are not being treated for any condition, they are being experimented on in various ways with unknown side effects and unknown conclusions. It
is here within these two facts that the barrier of ethical behavior is breached.
When I go to a doctor, a dentist, or any other professional that I've granted the right to treat my body or mind in any way, I've been assured that I am safe in their hands. The "experimenters" in these programs can not promise anything. The only absolute in these programs is that they don't know what is going to happen. As basic as the program could be, everything after the initial treatment is a complete unknown and thus renders the program an unethical action. Even if the individual consents, the professional in this situation has an obligation to restrict from performing any such experiment on a person where the side effects and conclusions are completely unknown.
Let us take a minute to consider some components of the Hippocratic Oath, the pledge that governs those that care for us during our time of need.
Those that have been bestowed the privilege of treating our sick have been offered it with restrictions. The experiments that we discuss here in this debate are a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that these medical professionals swear to at the time of their graduation.
I've held off so far through this debate but I feel the time has come to take this next step and display two images that really offer us an overview of what it is we are discussing. We are discussing experimentation without the consent of individuals. The best example we can consider when dealing with this is the current experimentation on animals, as it is obviously without their consent. I apologize in advance because I'll be honest, it is extremely difficult to look at these pictures. I have selected two with no gore, but two that really show the emotions that these animals are feeling as their bodies are being treated in a manner that their heart does not desire.
Actually, on second thought I won't post these images directly in the thread but will provide a link. That way if someone does not wish to see these images, then they do not have to. A note to the judges, if you do not wish to see these images, feel no obligation to click on the link.
Image #1
In this picture you see a cat with a cochlear implant attached to his head. The pain in his eyes is evident as even a cat can display the emotion that indicates that the sanctity of his own body and personal space has been violated. The emotions that this cat feels are no different than what you or I would feel.
I ask you, looking into the eyes of this cat.. would you tell him that no ethics were breached in this treatment against his will?
Image #2
In this image we have a baby monkey having a small needle inserted into his face. No gore, but the pain I believe is evident.
If we could speak to this monkey, would we tell him that we are within our right to do this because he may have made a wrong decision in life? What if the monkey had a family and that family came asking why, would we really be able to tell them that what we're doing to their dad is within ethical confines?
On a side-note, I am an animal lover and I will talk to my pets as if they are talking back to me. No I'm not crazy but I know my pets and I know the personalities they have. If your not a person who loves animals and isn't grasping my personification of these animals, I'll explain that I am using these examples because these are the very programs that my opponent supports to be conducted on humans. So if it is tough to look at these pictures of animals, how could anyone be able to look at a picture of their son, daughter or even neighbor having the exact same experiments conducted on them.
It is a shame that this occurs and it is a criminal action, in my opinion. And it would be equally, if not more, as criminal to conduct this on any human being.
I will now respond to the answers my opponent posed from my previous Socratic questions.
In a short summation, I am very disappointed in the lack of a response that I received from my opponent with regards to these questions. In those that he does respond to, he sticks to his guns that supports his position, which I understand and respect, but nowhere does he take a moment to substantiate this position. And in the others, he just doesn't respond. The rules of the debate are very clear that answers must be provided and must be direct. My opponent has been anything but.
This is an answer that I received.
Before I respond, let me quote the rules of this debate.
Where in those rules does it say that it has to be questions on what the opponents have agreed what the topic is? My opponent says it's not relevant so refuses to answer the question. If I asked my opponent what he had for breakfast three Tuesday's ago, I'd want an answer not a question of why it is relevant. I feel my opponent could have made an effort to be direct in these questions.
However, I do understand why he didn't respond.
When asked who would oversee these programs, who would? There is nobody. Thus, absolutely no transparency or accountability within these programs. And what does that spell? U-N-E-T-H-I-C-A-L. If I'm going to operate in an ethical manner, than I do so transparently and with accountability. This program would have neither as reinforced by my opponent who has done nothing to inform us of how either would be assured.
I will now pose the last of my Socratic questions.
SQ1. Are dictatorships usually ethical?
SQ2. Do the images I link cause you to react in any way?
SQ3. Do you really believe what you're saying or are you merely defending a position for this debate?
SQ4. Should animals have rights that protect them from these experimental programs?
Thank you.
When I go to a doctor, a dentist, or any other professional that I've granted the right to treat my body or mind in any way, I've been assured that I am safe in their hands. The "experimenters" in these programs can not promise anything. The only absolute in these programs is that they don't know what is going to happen. As basic as the program could be, everything after the initial treatment is a complete unknown and thus renders the program an unethical action. Even if the individual consents, the professional in this situation has an obligation to restrict from performing any such experiment on a person where the side effects and conclusions are completely unknown.
Let us take a minute to consider some components of the Hippocratic Oath, the pledge that governs those that care for us during our time of need.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
Those that have been bestowed the privilege of treating our sick have been offered it with restrictions. The experiments that we discuss here in this debate are a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that these medical professionals swear to at the time of their graduation.
I've held off so far through this debate but I feel the time has come to take this next step and display two images that really offer us an overview of what it is we are discussing. We are discussing experimentation without the consent of individuals. The best example we can consider when dealing with this is the current experimentation on animals, as it is obviously without their consent. I apologize in advance because I'll be honest, it is extremely difficult to look at these pictures. I have selected two with no gore, but two that really show the emotions that these animals are feeling as their bodies are being treated in a manner that their heart does not desire.
Actually, on second thought I won't post these images directly in the thread but will provide a link. That way if someone does not wish to see these images, then they do not have to. A note to the judges, if you do not wish to see these images, feel no obligation to click on the link.
Image #1
In this picture you see a cat with a cochlear implant attached to his head. The pain in his eyes is evident as even a cat can display the emotion that indicates that the sanctity of his own body and personal space has been violated. The emotions that this cat feels are no different than what you or I would feel.
I ask you, looking into the eyes of this cat.. would you tell him that no ethics were breached in this treatment against his will?
Image #2
In this image we have a baby monkey having a small needle inserted into his face. No gore, but the pain I believe is evident.
If we could speak to this monkey, would we tell him that we are within our right to do this because he may have made a wrong decision in life? What if the monkey had a family and that family came asking why, would we really be able to tell them that what we're doing to their dad is within ethical confines?
On a side-note, I am an animal lover and I will talk to my pets as if they are talking back to me. No I'm not crazy but I know my pets and I know the personalities they have. If your not a person who loves animals and isn't grasping my personification of these animals, I'll explain that I am using these examples because these are the very programs that my opponent supports to be conducted on humans. So if it is tough to look at these pictures of animals, how could anyone be able to look at a picture of their son, daughter or even neighbor having the exact same experiments conducted on them.
It is a shame that this occurs and it is a criminal action, in my opinion. And it would be equally, if not more, as criminal to conduct this on any human being.
I will now respond to the answers my opponent posed from my previous Socratic questions.
In a short summation, I am very disappointed in the lack of a response that I received from my opponent with regards to these questions. In those that he does respond to, he sticks to his guns that supports his position, which I understand and respect, but nowhere does he take a moment to substantiate this position. And in the others, he just doesn't respond. The rules of the debate are very clear that answers must be provided and must be direct. My opponent has been anything but.
That isn’t up to me to decide, as our topic doesn’t request it.
This is an answer that I received.
Before I respond, let me quote the rules of this debate.
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.
Where in those rules does it say that it has to be questions on what the opponents have agreed what the topic is? My opponent says it's not relevant so refuses to answer the question. If I asked my opponent what he had for breakfast three Tuesday's ago, I'd want an answer not a question of why it is relevant. I feel my opponent could have made an effort to be direct in these questions.
However, I do understand why he didn't respond.
When asked who would oversee these programs, who would? There is nobody. Thus, absolutely no transparency or accountability within these programs. And what does that spell? U-N-E-T-H-I-C-A-L. If I'm going to operate in an ethical manner, than I do so transparently and with accountability. This program would have neither as reinforced by my opponent who has done nothing to inform us of how either would be assured.
I will now pose the last of my Socratic questions.
SQ1. Are dictatorships usually ethical?
SQ2. Do the images I link cause you to react in any way?
SQ3. Do you really believe what you're saying or are you merely defending a position for this debate?
SQ4. Should animals have rights that protect them from these experimental programs?
Thank you.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
