The Instigator
debatingequality
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
debatefox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Animal Cosmetics 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 2 votes the winner is...
debatingequality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,520 times Debate No: 56307
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (81)
Votes (2)

 

debatingequality

Con

I believe cosmetics being tested on animals is unethical and unnecessary.
debatefox

Pro

I think that cosmetic testing on animals is necessary and helpful to the entire human race. I'm not saying it should be used for every cosmetic just ones that could hold a potential risk to human health and until we have a better way of testing cosmetic on something that acts alive but is not alive we will have to make due with animals. if not humans may die.
Debate Round No. 1
debatingequality

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate.

You said in your argument that we should only test cosmetics on animals when those cosmetics could harm a persons health. Companies shouldn't be putting harmful substances in their cosmetics in the first place. Later, you said that we'll have to use animals when testing cosmetics until we have a better solution. There are other alternatives to testing on animals.

Also, I don't think humans would die if we didn't have animals for cosmetics testing.

http://www.humanesociety.org...
debatefox

Pro

sceince is like trying to find your way through a dark room. chemicals can be very harmful and if they add a chemical trying to find out if it help the hair or completely destroys it what are they going to test it on. how else would they know. test it on humans? i don't think so. you said, "I don't think humans would die if we didn't have animals for cosmetics testing." well according to http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk... animal cosmetic testing ism used to check for toxicity and if it can kill humans. so yes it can harm or even kill humans without it.
Debate Round No. 2
debatingequality

Con

Like I said, there are other solutions so we don't need to test on animals. If we tested cosmetics on other stuff, we would't be harming animals, and we can still make sure products are safe.
debatefox

Pro

you have failed to state what the other stuff is and you would need to test cosmetics on something that has similar and or the same gene structure as humans do so you can't test cosmetics out on a random thing and call it safe.
Debate Round No. 3
debatingequality

Con

If you bothered to read my arcticle, you would see the multiple alternatives.


Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional "pyrogen" tests.


EpiSkin™, EpiDerm™ and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin—can save thousands of rabbits each year from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests.


The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry instead of live rabbits to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes.


The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test can replace the use of mice and other animals in the testing of medicines and other products for their potential to cause sunlight induced "photo-toxicity."


The Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay for skin allergy testing makes it possible to reduce animal use by up to 75 percent compared with traditional guinea pig and mouse tests.





And if that didn't satisfy you, here's another website that explains alternatives in more detail. Alternative ways are less expensive and more accurate.

http://www.neavs.org...;

and you would need to test cosmetics on something that has similar and or the same gene structure as humans do so you can't test cosmetics out on a random thing and call it safe.

I don't know where your getting your information.

http://www.neavs.org...;

http://www.humanesociety.org...
debatefox

Pro

using an eye from a rabbit is still using animals for cosmetic testing your argument says animal cosmetic testing not alive animal testing second humans are animals so using blood from them is still animal testing you should really be more clear on the rules
Debate Round No. 4
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
me too
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
ok i have to log of for a bit ill be on later though
Posted by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
if you go to my profile and scroll down. It will show my stances on issues
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
hevey gun control but still allow military to own guns
Posted by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
What are your thoughts on gun control?
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
what should it be about
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
yep we will get better
Posted by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
yeah we can practice
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
of course
Posted by debatefox 2 years ago
debatefox
of course
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jdean1 2 years ago
jdean1
debatingequalitydebatefoxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It is quite obvious who won and used better grammar. Pro spelled simple words like science wrong and this level of care was obvious throughout his argument. CON proved this case simply and PRO really never came up with anything.
Vote Placed by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
debatingequalitydebatefoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are grammatically incoherent and he seems to concede when faced with alternative methods proposed in Con's source. Though the definition may have been vague, no attempt to define it was instigated by Pro.