The Debate Club discussion

Thanks for the suggestion, kitcantspell!

depends on what the prisoners have done

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh
This is a tricky topic
I remember seeing a video that said "we should use rapists as test subjects. what are they gonna do? say no?"
Theoretically this could be a fairly good idea (testing on prisoners obviously depending on the crime). However, at the same time I feel like it can be a slippery slope. The people who are doing the tests might not care about the crime and take just anyone. There's also the possibility that people would get thrown in prison just for testings. I might be overthinking things but I feel like its definitely a possibility.

um absolutely not

justice yes, but in a humane way. criminals are still humans, they should not have to be experimented on like animals

Lol but animals didnt do anything to you as in some rabbit didnt hurt anyine yet is being punished
The prisoner if violent did hurt people

yes but the prisoner is still a human being and an animal is not

i think it really depends on what the prisoner did. you wanna harm an innocent animal for what, a lip liner? cleaning products? hell nah. do it on the rapist or the man who murdered countless people

they committed the act while people begged for mercy. like chadlotte said, what are they going to do? say no?

Faith wrote: "yes but the prisoner is still a human being and an animal is not"

So do you believe animals are worth less than our own species, even though we are currently destroying our planet?

Faith wrote: "yes but the prisoner is still a human being and an animal is not"

Sure but animals still feel and are still alive

animals could never do some of the crimes humans do, so it's pretty fair

Well there a certainly a lot of crimes animals do.

House cats kill for sport rather than eating

Most animal reproduction it is impossible to tell of there is concent ie almost all animals rape.

Dolphins are known for drowning humans because they get rapey to humans.

Pig mothers have been known to eat their own babies if the baby is a runt or just annoys them too much.

That is just to name a few

-house cat is circle of life, they hunt mice
-i cant really give a valid answer on the second one
-dolphins are known to be vicious animals but everyone is lured in by their adorable appearance
- again, circle of life! hamsters and guinea pigs do this too, which is why the mothers are seperated from the babies at a certain point

True most animals do these things on their instincts but what are human insticnts?

What if the level of crime the person committed determines the dose that you get or the danger levels of the product that is being tested? Like, if you murdered or r@ped someone, you get a high testing dosage or a more dangerous test product? That way its fair or smth.

I totally agree.
By what I said earlier, I meant that animals aren't aware that killing or any other nad thing they do is wrong, this is why I think they don't deserve to be treated so cruelly. People know and think about what they're doing before they do it

Agreed.

i love wasting time by doing anything except what i'm supposed to be doing :)

𝔖𝔦𝔯𝔢𝔫 wrote: "I love wasting time by daydreaming and making Kandi"

XD i used to spend hours making kandi

Sai :) wrote: "i love wasting time by doing anything except what i'm supposed to be doing :)"

real

Faith wrote: "yes but the prisoner is still a human being and an animal is not"

Scientifically speaking, we are animals.
Just the fortunate ones that evolved.

well i would disagree bc i dont believe in evolultion, but thats for another discussion lol

𝔖𝔦𝔯𝔢𝔫 wrote: "I think we should test on either people who volunteer to be tested on or prisoners, but only ones who have committed atrocities like murder, rape etc and only if we’re 110% sure they did it. we sho..."

i agree with the last paragraph, i feel for almost every experiment you would need to do you can find consenting people for it. if you feel you will die anyways then there is a much greater chance you'll agree to a test being done on you. using prisoners/animals, aka those that do not consent, should be a last resort

i think neither. why do we actually have to do testing that is harmful whether is people or animals? shouldn't the testing be safe?

idk if this was apart of anyone else's childhood, but have you ever seen the video with the bunny who's being tested on. it's like his "day in the life of an animal being tested". why do we have to use this harmful techniques to do testing? what exactly are you testing that would be that harmful? is it to make sure the chemicals in something isn't harmful to people? there has to be a better way to do it.

No, never, people are people. Animal testing is bad but in certain fields it's necessary, like in sciences. Even if a prisoner has done the worst crimes, they do not deserve to be tested on.

agree. humans should be treated with dignity and respect, even if they have committed a crime, we should deal with that in a humane way. testing on humans is just plain cruel (as is testing on animals in a lot of cases)

well we dont live in a culture where we torture people lol so yeah i still mean what i said

punishment? absolutely. expirementation like humans are some kind of lab rat? i dont see why

like i said earlier i think those that don't consent should be a last resort

but violent and unashamed prisoners over animals
(this doesn't include petty crimes like theft, i mean like rape and murder and such)

Sai :) wrote: "but violent and unashamed prisoners over animals
(this doesn't include petty crimes like theft, i mean like rape and murder and such)"

yeah I agree with that

oh my god i was talking to kit about this like
im pretty sure i said like the inhumane crimes and stuff like what are they gonna do? say no? you know who else said no?

ashes and diamonds wrote: "oh my god i was talking to kit about this like
im pretty sure i said like the inhumane crimes and stuff like what are they gonna do? say no? you know who else said no?"

IM THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED THE TOPIC DUH

Faith wrote: "agree. humans should be treated with dignity and respect, even if they have committed a crime, we should deal with that in a humane way. testing on humans is just plain cruel (as is testing on anim..."


Dignity and respect? I mean, i get it if you dont believe humans should be tested on, thats reasonable.
But if someone has murdered, raped, or really any other horrific crime similar, they should get no dignity nor respect, from me at least.

ray ✩₊˚.⋆☾⋆⁺₊ ✩ wrote: "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"

An eye for an arm a tooth for a foot

i didn't back read!
i have mixed feelings on this because on one hand, testing unconsensually on people kinda dehumanizes them (even if they are horrible people) and that just feels like some major dystopian shit
on the other hand, i suppose being tested on could be a punishment for rapists and murderers. they certainly deserve it, while the animals don't
idk how i feel about this, honestly 😭

i think it could open up a lot of doors to abuse of power if that makes sense

ray ✩₊˚.⋆☾⋆⁺₊ ✩ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "No, never, people are people. Animal testing is bad but in certain fields it's necessary, like in sciences. Even if a prisoner has done the worst crimes, they do not..."

Yes, he's still a person, a horrible person, but a person. I'm not defending what he did but everyone deserves bodily autonomy.

okay this might be ethically contrevrsial within this group but i remember seeing a twitter post or something like "drunk driver kills ku klux klan member" and all the comments were "so grateful no human being was hurt!" "guys this isn't funny a human could have died"

kitcantspell wrote: "ashes and diamonds wrote: "oh my god i was talking to kit about this like
im pretty sure i said like the inhumane crimes and stuff like what are they gonna do? say no? you know who else said no?"

..."

OH LOL THAT MAKES SENSE
legitemtely though like bffr those animals were living their best life these bitches ruined peoples lives

so true like what

this is just such a slippery slope. our justice system isn't perfect- there are some cases in which, for example the death penalty was performed on someone who was later proven innocent. Since 1973, at least 200 people sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated, with exonerations driven by DNA evidence, official misconduct, and perjury. If this happened for death penalty, I feel like it could just as easily become very dystopian. And even then, what is 'right' and 'wrong' is a completely subjective thing and the criminal justice thing turns it much more objective. I think in theory, testing on rapists is a decent idea-however, I have a feeling there is zero way to perform criminal testing without doing so on innocent people, or completely dehumanizing people who subjectively doesn't deserve to be considered a criminal.

What if the testing was for some medicine that would save human lives… at least the criminal could do something good for humanity…

Jonas wrote: "What if the testing was for some medicine that would save human lives… at least the criminal could do something good for humanity…"

the idea that just because someone is incarcerated the only real accomplishment they'd have is being tortured or tested on is sort of crazy imo. they have lives outside of being a criminal- what if were addressing an addict, or someone who was wrongly convicted? in any case, I feel like this is unacceptable.

If it's completely necessary, then I'd say they would have to be sentenced to it. If they just stole from the mall or something, no. The judge should be able to decide if they would be allowed to have them tested or not, but I'd overall say no, they shouldn't be tested on in the first place.

if its so controversial why would we even consider doing it when theres so many reasons not to?

Good point. It is very controversial but I guess it'd be for more in the future, rather than here, if it becomes absolutely necessary.

Jubilee wrote: "this is just such a slippery slope. our justice system isn't perfect- there are some cases in which, for example the death penalty was performed on someone who was later proven innocent. Since 1973..."

Just my point, if we start removing bodily autonomy from some we remove it from all.

ray pines ✩₊˚.⋆☾⋆ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "ray ✩₊˚.⋆☾⋆⁺₊ ✩ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "No, never, people are people. Animal testing is bad but in certain fields it's necessary, like in sciences. E..."

If we remove it from some, we remove it from all. Who decides what a bad enough crime is to deserve it? Human testing is something the Nazis did, it was bad and caused so many deaths. Human testing is a death penalty.

couldnt agree more

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Jubilee wrote: "this is just such a slippery slope. our justice system isn't perfect- there are some cases in which, for example the death penalty was performed on someone who was later proven inno..."

yes 100%