You have David Suzuki on one side, and Frederic A. King on the other. One's a renowned and ardent defender of nature's interests, and the other's a neuroscientist, director of Emory University's primate research centre, and an adherent of animal research and experimentation. Naturally, Suzuki's "The Pain of Animals" and King's "Animals in Research: The Case of Experimentation" contrast in the gist of their respective arguments, specifically on the topic of humans' rights over animals, but also on their views of the opposing arguments, but can still be considered similar in style, in this case in their appeal to our sensitivity. In his plea against the liberal use of animals for basic research and experimentation, David Suzuki denounces humans' "sacrifice" of animals, to advance their own cause. Throughout his essay, he reminds us that animals are "living beings" and that they have shown an ability to feel pain and emotions. In that aspect, he thinks the animal species is no different than men, and that it's no coincidence that men have designated animals as their tool of choice for research: it is because we resemble them so much. As for Frederic King, he believes that although animals should be treated with consideration, on the basis of their sense of pain and emotion, they should not be put on the same pedestal as humans. Therefore, it is our right to put them to the contribution of humanity's evolvement, which they have been doing very successfully. He states that, most of the time, animals are the only possible option to go forth with experimentation. In the following lines, my focus will be on both authors' use of argumentum ad hominen, their playing on feelings, their level of consideration for the opposing side's views and opinions, and their perception of man's place in nature.
             First of all, we notice that bot...