The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Animal Abuse/Testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 66897
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Blaine Laswell
Ms. Hogan
English 1
19 November 2014

Testing On Animals

Testing on animals is violent and wrong because they feel and think in the same way that we do. My main points are that we should ban animal testing everywhere in the world and that animals have feeling and emotion lastly is that there are alternative testing methods for testing medicines and such. Testing medicine and makeup on animals is wrong.

We should ban animal testing all over the world. Countries have already ban animal testing but why not the rest of the world? The E.U, Norway, Israel, and India have all ban animal testing but not the United States, Canada, or Russia. Why not? Animal testing costs lots of money and time but most of the money they use is actually taxpayers money. Others could say that everything they are doing is humane but it is not "It is unethical to put one hundred million thinking feeling animals to a life in a laboratoratory cage" People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Peta for short. Almost ninety-two of one hund0red drugs pass animal testing but fail in human exactly like the drug Vioxx which worked for animals but killed sixty thousand people.
Everyone in the world should ban such a horrific thing to do to all animal species.

Animals have nerves like us and feeling like so why does testing go on, the animals are forced to suffer more and more every day. Animals have emotions and thought processes like we do. If a dog whimpers what does the dog feel? If a cat hisses what does it mean? These things that do express feelings and emotions like when a human being cries or laughs. Just because they are not exactly like us does not mean they cannot feel. The most common thing people say is that animals do not have feeling or emotion. When a dog wags its tail t means that they could be happy or that they are agitated or some other emotion but it is an emotion. When an elephant covers the remains of its species and caresses the remains what do you think it is doing it is mourning the elephant that died. The things that these animals are doing show that they have emotion and feeling but why test on them when there are other ways.

There are other methods for testing medicine and makeup than using a living creature that did not volunteer itself. When using animals for testing it is essentially a waste of funding and time because the other ways are humane and cheaper. The college of Harvard has created a system that uses human cells grown inside a machine made to replicate human diseases and drug responses more accurate than animal testing. Otherwise they could just pay volunteering humans that give them their consent to mess with their body. The government may say that no those things are far more expensive than animal testing but it is not. Almost sixteen billion dollars of taxpayer"s money goes to animal testing. One point nine million dollars in the University of Ohio State for cruel heart attack experiments on dogs or the sixteen million at Harvard for drug addiction experiments on monkeys even the three million at Wisconsin University for mice fighting experiments.

Just because animals do not talk like us does not mean they do not feel so all the testing that the world does on animals is wrong and should be stopped. The governments of the world should ban animal testing because animals have feelings and emotions, because there are alternative ways to test these things. Animal testing should be ban world wide not a single town not a single state should it be allowed. If you were being dissected to see what a toxin did to your tissue would you think it was humane?


PETA. "Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing." PETA Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014

Bekkof, Mark. "Do Animals Have Emotions?" The Bark. The Bark, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

"More Than $16 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing." PETA. PETA, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.


This is a sensitive topic for "animal lovers", but personal stance must not influence logic. I love my dog and fish tank, but I can still be an animal lover while supporting animal testing. To win this debate, Pro will have had to have shown that life quality for organisms around the world would be better off without animal testing. My argument will highlight what animal testing has done globally for humanity and animals. Although not a rabbit, a human is an animal too.. this must be kept in mind.

Animal testing has been the catalyst of breakthroughs and cures for almost every major disease on planet earth. Without conducting research test on animals, organisms in every biome would experience a lower rate of survival. Humans are not the only organisms that benefit from research conducted on animals. Endangered species, Pets, and regular wildlife have also received the benefits of animal testing. I will highlight a few examples of human benefit, then switch to how wild animals have benefited.

Cancer = 60% of break throughs in cancer survivorship since 1975 can be attributed to medicine. Thanks to breakthroughs in treating cancer, life expectancy in the United States has risen by 10.7%. Humanity has long battled cancer, and anyone who has been personally effected will tell you that "Cancer sucks". Thankfully, everyday we get closer to eradicating this disease. An overwhelming majority of the medicines that are used to battle cancer are a product of Animal testing. Below I will name a couple.
- Childhood Leukemia = The most common of all childhood cancers, once had a survival rate of 4%. Today, the survival rate for Leukemia is 80%. A good part of this increase is directly related to research conducted on animals. With better medicine comes better treatment, and this medicine would not exist if it were not for everything learned through animal testing.
- Breast Cancer = effecting 180,000 women a year, breast cancer is unfortunately all too common in society. Herceptin and Tamoxifen are the 2 most common drugs to help treat this disease. These drugs were developed through animal testing. Together, they have made the survival rate of breast cancer a little over 75%.

Diabetes = 18.2 million people in the US are living with a form of diabetes. Research on supplementing insulin is yet another product of animal testing. Dog's and cat's with diabetes also live longer, healthier lives thanks to this research.

Heart Disease = The most common reason for death in the United States is Heart Disease. Statins are taken daily by millions of americans to lower cholesterol, and you guessed it.. they exist thanks to animal testing.

These are just a few of the 1,000's of ailments that are now treatable due to testing done on animals. But enough about us humans, let's talk about the benefits to wildlife..

Rabies = now under control thanks to the testing done on animals. This disease once posed a threat to wild life, but now the threat has been severely reduced and a vaccine exist.

Ticks = It is no secret that ticks carry disease. Thanks to research on ticks and animals infested with ticks, we now have much better ways to eliminate ticks in the wild. This is a huge benefit to almost every animal in the world and has raised quality of life.

Reproduction = Through studying reproduction habits and developing artificial insemination we can now boost the birth rates of endangered species.

Parasitism - Parasites have harmed living organisms since their initial existence. By studying animals that are infected with parasites we have discovered methods to eradicate the parasite without killing the animal.

These are just a few ways animal testing has improved the quality of life in wild creatures. When the next disease breaks out via parasites or ticks we will be ready to combat it and save countless amounts of wildlife thanks to facts learned through animal testing.

Refutal I: Pro argues that humans should be able to receive payment to be tested on. In every experiment you need a control (in this case a humans with the same problem that receive no treatment) and that is not only completely impractical but the highest level of inhumane. I believe this is a horrifying idea. People could potentially be sold into the "Human Testing Trade" similarly to what occurs in the sex trade. More horrifyingly.. this would open the door for the potential of people being bred for the soul purpose of being tested. I believe this is a reckless idea that could threaten core moral ideals of society and humanity as a whole.

Refutal II: Although most animals do have a central nervous system it is a fallacy to believe that they "think in the same way that we do." I can assure you there are not two squirrels in a tree right now debating the ethics behind animal testing. It is also not true to insinuate that they feel and comprehend pain in the same way that we do. Yes they feel pain, but to what extent? What about possible psychological side effects? Are we to pretend that animals mentally process depression and anxiety to the degree of humans?

Refutal III: "Animal testing costs lots of money and time but most of the money they use is actually taxpayers money." My response to this is simple, what is the monetary vale for the price of a human life? If Your child had cancer, what would you pay to increase their chance of survival? If Your mother had cancer, what would you pay for drugs that could save her life? I'll leave that for all to answer. (The government spends much more money harming living creatures through war.. but I won't go there)

Refutal IV: "Harvard has created a system that uses human cells grown inside a machine made to replicate human diseases and drug responses more accurate than animal testing." Until Harvard can create living organs out of cells, a vast majority of diseases will not be testable via this method. How can drugs that purify the body during kidney failure be tested on human cells and not an actual kidney? This is just one of many diseases that would not have any practical use for this method.

Refutal V: Why is animal testing bad, but breeding and raising animals for human consumption is acceptable?.. In no way does any other organism benefit from that practice except humans.

In conclusion, I believe it is undeniable that animal testing has increased the overall life quality of all organisms on Earth. A global ban on animal testing would degrade the average quality of life on planet earth. Not only do humans benefit, but so do all animals. Pro want's to save animals from testing by substituting them with human's, but seems to forget that we are animals too. Although I respect Pro's opinion, and love my dog and fish as well, I do not believe there is any way one can vote in favor of Pro's argument without realizing they are voting in favor of lowering the average quality of life for all living organisms.

Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. This was an excellent debate. Con presented a very compelling case against animal testing with arguments ranging from financial and emotional harms to alternative methods such as using humans. Pro then presented a very strong case for animal testing by showing the benefits that such testing have yielded. This was pretty solid in terms of arguments and backed accordingly by sources. Furthermore, and this is what cost Con the win, Pro provided valid rebuttals against each argument raised by Con. This is the problem with 1 round debates. It doesn't give the instigator a chance to provide rebuttals against Pro's counter-arguments. In this case specifically, Pro was able to overcome each argument raised by Con, and unfortunately Con was unable to provide any responses to Pro which left his sound arguments standing unchallenged. For this, Pro wins.