The Instigator
rightandwrong
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Empiren
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
rightandwrong
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 56575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

rightandwrong

Con

Animal testing is unethical and unnecessary.
Empiren

Pro

In the interest of well, interest, I'll concede ethics to Con in the first round. I have no real need to argue that it is ethical as i'm sure the general argument would just devolve into basic animal rights and get further away from the topic.

As for it being unnecessary, I will of course argue that Con should provide:
-Why it is unnecessary
-What other alternatives there are.
-Why we should use those alternatives instead.

This should provide a more simplistic process without the Con needing to explain the meaning of life while trying to make his points.

Anyway, lets do this!
Debate Round No. 1
rightandwrong

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate Empiren.

"Why it is unnecessary"

The reason testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary is because there are plenty of other alternatives. The other alternatives are less costly and more accurate.

"What other alternatives there are."

EpiSkin- EpiSkin is a model of reconstructed skin. When tested on, it predicts corrosivity and irritation. Its accuracy is between 90-95%.

EpiDerm- Cultured human skin cells. When tested on, it can detect chemical irritants. It detected all chemical irritants. When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate.

To test toxicity, animals were forced to ingest chemicals where 50% of the animals died. As an alternative, donated human tissue is tested on to target where specific organs are affected. This alternative is 85% accurate. Testing on animals is 65% accuarate.

InVitro International"s Corrositex- Non animal testing is less costly and less time consuming. InVitro can detect corosivity in 3 minuted to four hours. Animal testing can take two to for weeks.

DakDak is used to test the effectivness of sunscreen. It can give results in days where animal testing can take months. It can also test five to six products for less than half the cost. Animals testing costs million of dollars where as alternatives are a fraction of the cost.

Just to add, animal testing is harmful to the enviroment becuase of the disposal of so many dead animals.

Not to drone on, here are plenty more
alternatives.

http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...

It provides alternatives that test skin sensitisation, carcinigenity, toxicokinetics, and reproductive toxicity.

http://www.neavs.org...
Empiren

Pro

Empiren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rightandwrong

Con

That's to bad, I was hoping of having a debate.
Empiren

Pro

I was too, I misread the debate as being 2days instead of 24hours. *(which is a rather short time for me as I was busy, especially with pdfs and such just linked in a general throw-out).

Well since it's 5 rounds I think we still have time for what is a rather simple debate(seriously, 5 rounds!? Why?).
---------------

My opponent does not use statistics correctly.

His statistics are anecdotal evidence, i.e. using a small sample size to generalize a much larger population.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd also like to address the statistics in general. Percent error, percent accuracy, and cost are all improperly explained.

EpiSkin: I can't even find that source on that but ok.

Epiderm:
"When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate."
Explain wrong.
-Are they just invalid because of improper testing?
-Do different rabbits show different symptoms?
-Etc. etc. It needs an explanation.

InVitro International"s Corrositex
-Cost not shown, cost by comparison not shown. Claim invalid.

This debate is a rather easy win for you pro.

Just provide me with decent sources and show me an opportunity cost scenario.

Also, if you provide sources with multiple pages, please state what page. The audience is not going to shift though 3+ pages of science journals to
Debate Round No. 3
rightandwrong

Con

Could you please explain what part of my statistics are anecdotal? And please elaborate on how my statistics are anecdotal.

"When tested on rabbits, 10 out of 25 tested had were wrong. 40% error rate."
"Explain wrong."


If you read the article it states that they misclassified 10 out of 25 test chemicals.


"Cost not shown, cost by comparison not shown. Claim invalid."

The article that tells about the cost of alternatives didn't go into detail but that doesn't mean my claim is invalid.


"In a recent evaluation, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually, in shipping costs, for a single compound when using the Corrositextest to define the Packing Group instead of relying on pH. In addition to the reduction in shipping charges, additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety and MSDS development."

http://www.invitrointl.com...





"This debate is a rather easy win for you pro.

Just provide me with decent sources and show me an opportunity cost scenario."

Maybe stop acting like you know what your talking about and present your reasons on way we should continue animal testing.
Empiren

Pro

Your claims are anecdotal because they are using a small sample size to claim a larger one.

For instance you use the "10 out of 25 tested rabbits." Among the thousands of test conducted, you are using a small case to falsely state that this is the average.

Note: My opponent is now asking me to read entire articles and somehow debate them as if any article posted is supposed to get an entire debate.

I am not responsible for addressing every article presented in it's entirety, just the quote in question. I am also not here to debate copy-pasted material.

My opponent does not present the cost nor the cost of the alternatives but claims they are "cheaper".

"In a recent evaluation, one customer saved up to $50,000 annually, in shipping costs, for a single compound when using the Corrositextest to define the Packing Group instead of relying on pH. In addition to the reduction in shipping charges, additional cost savings are found in the areas of workplace safety and MSDS development."

Anecdotal evidence and evidence from the seller fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It would be like me arguing Allstate is better as a whole but you posting "this customer saved 15% switching to Geico." The link you provided came directly from the people selling the alternative(invitro), it would be foolish for anyone in any debate to automatically trust the company selling a product like that. My opponent also fails to realize that this is one case out of thousands.

"Maybe stop acting like you know what your talking about and present your reasons on way we should continue animal testing."
[Note: My opponent uses a personal attack]

1. It is more cost effective than the alternative.

2. Many of the alternatives are not valid at the moment, some are not even in the stages of validation.[1]
http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org...

3. There are studies which the alternatives cannot perform, such as full-body reaction and the like. There are currently no alternatives that can simulate this.
Debate Round No. 4
rightandwrong

Con

rightandwrong forfeited this round.
Empiren

Pro

Well since my opponent forfeited this round I think i'll just put a few points to clarify my stance.

1. We use animals for testing because they allow the widest range for testing per sample, and they are the most efficient means monetarily.
A) They allow us to test for toxicity in a "life cycle" that is, to test what effect it a sample could have over-time.
B) There are so many things that if not tested correctly can lead to severe consequences on humans. Animal testing right now is the only sure way to test these chemicals. If left to alternatives at the current state, there are too many openings in which a toxic agents could pass and harm humanity.

2. We do not use alternatives right now for several reasons
A) The alternatives cost more.
B) The alternatives do not allow full-body test.
C) Many of the alternatives at the moment are not validated and in the early testing phase.

I'd also like to note that the cosmetic industry is for profit. If the alternative treatments were cheaper or more efficient even by a reasonable amount the researchers would use them instead in a heartbeat. If the researchers only had to use a small vial or kit instead of animal maintenance, they would. It's just not at that stage right now and the alternatives just don't have the range or efficiency of animal testing.

Thanks for the debate, sorry for the forfeits on either side, vote whoever you want.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
@debatingequality: explain your reasoning or your vote will be removed.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Seems you didn't get the point....
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
That was simply a rephrasing.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Oh does it?

Sorry my bad. "I don't care if you are upset" should have been the response.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
That kind of dodges the point behind the statement.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
I don't care if you dislike me.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Empiren, even if win that, I will still dislike you.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Though Animal Cosmetics are for use on Animals, so they should be testing them on Humans to make sure that they are suitable for use on Animals.
:-D~
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Have fun, make it count.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Oh don't mind him, he's just salty that he's going to lose his "prostitutes for prisoners" debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
rightandwrongEmpirenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: rightandwrong provided good arguments but empiren didn't.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
rightandwrongEmpirenTied
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: The Title states Animal Cosmetics being tested on animals, when it should read "Human Cosmetics Being Tested On Animals". So according to the Debate Title the Instigator Is Wrong, because you can only test Animal Cosmetics On Animals, there is no point testing animal cosmetics on humans. Also, many Human cosmetics are not yet able to be clinically tested on human tissue by legislation, so until a safe, non animal alternative is found, there is little choice but to test them on animals. If the legal system changed, it could be different.