An alternative for animal testing should be found.
Debate Rounds (4)
First I do agree that animal testing has helped scientist tremendously over the years in terms of the medical practise. Animal testing does help researchers to find drugs and treatments and I do understand that animals are the easiest target for them to test on, but I do not necessarily agree that it"s morally right to do so. The next "positive" on animal testing is that it improves human health. Yes, this might be true, because animal testing allows scientist to create better drugs and treatments that cures human sicknesses, but is it fair to practise this on animals in order to improve human health? Isn"t this just a very cruel and selfish way of thinking? I do understand that we need to move forward in the medical practise, but do we necessarily have to kill innocent animals to do so? Animals are alive; therefor they have a life even though they are not human. Is it fair to take one life (which you might think of less), in order to save another life (which you might think is more valuable)? The second last "positive" point on animal testing I"d like to make is that it helps to insure the safety of drugs. I agree with this statement and I understand that there might be less or non-alternatives for animal testing. My question to this is: what do we sacrifice in order for this? Is it worth it to brutally harm and kill animals in order for humans to succeed in the medical practise and live better lives? The biggest reason for animal testing is the fact that animals are considered similar to humans; therefor they are the best candidates for drug/medicine testing. I do not think that we should validate a cruel deed by using this argument. I suggest that a better alternative to animal testing should be discussed and decided on. It"s not fair to just accept the fact that animals are being used for animal testing, because they are similar to humans.
Now for the reasons I do not agree with animal testing:
First of all, animals are mostly killed or kept in captivity in order for the testing to proceed. Countless animals are tested on and killed after an experiment. Other animals will be injured and still remain in captivity after tests have been done. As an animal lover, I cannot imagine this being done to animals. Just as humans, animals are alive. They have a heart and soul, just as much as we do and it is not at all fair for humans to justify such a cruel action, just for the sake of improving our own lives. The second thing that makes this a loathing thought is that some of the drugs tested on animals may never be used for anything useful. To me, this is a disgusting thought. Why would you torture animals, to test drugs on them that might never be used? I think mankind should shame them for being so emotionless towards animals. The worst part of animal testing is the fact that it"s actually very expensive. Animal testing cost an enormous amount of money, since they fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. This makes animal testing even less worth the effort. If it costs you money to kill animals for drugs that might not even be used in the future, surely there should be a less cruel and cost-effective way of doing this?
Reading my adversary's arguments, I can see she has essentially conceded. As con, she must prove that an alternative for animal testing should NOT be found. Having said this, she has argued for my side and helped me in this debate.
However, I will continue to argue for my side.
Contention 1 - Mistreatment of tested animals
In animal testing, scientists aren't at all careful as to how they are handling animals that they test. Some of these cases can go unreported, and most go on the news.
" Concerns have been raised over the mistreatment of primates undergoing testing. In 1985 the case of Britches, a macaque monkey at the University of California, Riverside, gained public attention. He had his eyelids sewn shut and a sonar sensor on his head as part of an experiment to test sensory substitution devices for blind people. The laboratory was raided by Animal Liberation Front in 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals. The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded, however, that no corrective action was necessary. During the 2000s other cases have made headlines, include experiments at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University in 2002." - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
As shown, animal testing can put animals into extremely harsh conditions. For example (shown above), an animal could have his eyes sewn shut. 
Contention 2 - Animal tests are unreliable
Humans and other aanimals are different species, as each species has a different anatomy, organ structure, fixation of DNA and whatnot. Therefore, an animal test with good results can cause the death of many humans. 
"Species differences in anatomy, organ structure and function, toxin metabolism, chemical and drug absorption, and mechanisms of DNA repair—among myriad other differences between humans and other species—can give us inadequate or erroneous information when we attempt to apply animal data to human diseases and drug responses. For example, penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, aspirin is poisonous to cats, and the recalled diet drug phen-fen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans." - Neavs 
In fact, one case actually showed that more than 80 HIV vaccines that were safe for animals, when tested on humans, either had no effect or actually worsened the risk of them geting HIV.  This proves that animal tests are completely unreliable, and even dangerous, most of the time.
Studies suggest that 9 out of 10 animal tests fail this way. 
Contention 3 - Despite failed tests, on balance animal tests are extremely costly
As though the above were not enough, statistics show that $16,000,000,000 is wasted annually on animal tests.  (Zoom in for ease of viewing)
What's even more major, $16,000,000,000 is enough to do the above actions. Combine that with the fact that $16,000,000,000 is wasted every year, and the world could have been a much better place.
As you can see, for these reasons it is definite that we ought to find an alternative for animal testing.
Also, my opponent has essentially conceded, therefore failing to prove her side of debate.
As I understand, the person going (Pro) for, this argument should then state why they think that a alternative for animal testing should NOT be found, and prove that animal testing is a good and civil form of medical research. Since they are then (Pro) for, Animal Testing. (I am (Con) against, animal testing, therefore I am (Pro) for, finding an alternative to animal testing).
Or should the Pro and Con depend on the subject of your topic (an alternative for animal testing should be found) rather than the the topic itself (Animal Testing)? Then, I fully understand the confusion. This is only my second debate, so I've I'm doing it wrong you're more than welcome to inform me? :)
It seems that you did not even read my reply.
Since the resolution says an alternative for animal testing should be found, and you are con, you are against that statement that "an alternative for animal testing should be found." If you were just to debate about animal testing, the resolution would be "animal testing".
Therefore, I have not argued for you, but rather you have argued for me.
Pro: An alternative for animal testing should be found.
Con: An alternative for animal testing should NOT be found.
We must always follow and debate the resolution, instead of just the general topic.
Here is another example:
Resolution: The death penalty should be abolished.
Pro's argument: The death penalty SHOULD be abolished.
Con's argument: The death penalty SHOULD NOT be abolished.
Therefore, even though you are against animal testing, you have conceded according to the positions and resolution.
I hope you understand.
But in the meantime, VOTE PRO!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: concession
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.