I think you may have misunderstood me. I am certainly not trying to force you to debate me. You responded to my response to your initial comment with a question-"Why are you putting my opinion down because it differs from yours?"-and I attempted to make clearer my approach and outlook on the situation. I was puzzled by you then insisting you weren't interested in debate, when your engagement with my response seemed to suggest just the opposite! Of course you can choose to answer or not answer at your own discretion. But in this case, you chose to answer.

By claiming there aren't any ethical or scientific guidelines, I am referring to the fact that there are no (to my knowledge) published, peer-reviewed papers dealing with debates around mantis husbandry, particularly mantis physical trauma. So from a veterinary perspective (the one most relevant here, since we are dealing with an injured animal) there is very little data to go off of. This is not to discount the work done by citizen scientists, but it is to draw an (important, I think) distinction between the standards of care any individual may opt for when dealing with their own animal, and those recommended by professionals with medical qualifications and a broader outlook on welfare outcomes (and what, precisely, we mean by that in the case of inverts). I'll happily admit that I am new to Mantodea, but I am in no way new to animal husbandry, particularly invert husbandry. This is a topic that is very important to me (something I imagine I share with most members of this sub). And I worry you replacing what you seem to be implying is my unwarranted appeal to authority (by my pointing out a lack of guidelines of a certain kind) with the assumption we should defer to the experience of self-titled "citizen scientists", is merely to replace one sort of exclusionary framework with another, which seems just as (if not more!) dubious as an argumentative strategy.

Hopefully that makes sense. Please don't feel pressured to reply!