Specific Purpose To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken.
Central Idea By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved.
Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class.
What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess? B.
You guys give up?
Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing. II.
I know that wasn't too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong. A.
After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated. B.
Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or "vivisection", has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century.
Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today. A.
I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems. B.
Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken.
(Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing.)
As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter. A.
According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes' theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering. 1.
But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document