The Instigator
rightandwrong
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TH3Antag0nist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Animal Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 45268
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

rightandwrong

Pro

I am against the testing of cosmetic products on animals. I would like to debate this topic with someone.
TH3Antag0nist

Con

Thank you con for this debate.
There are no rules so I will start of with my opening arguments.

Opposing Argument #1:

Cosmetics are widely used through the world today. However combining chemical to make new smells, colors. and textures can be dangerous. On average, respondents use nine products daily. These contain 126 unique ingredients. One man in 100 and fully 25 percent of women surveyed apply 15 or more products each day. Well what if a harmful ingredient was mixed into the publicly sold products. Many people could get hurt or even killed. So what is the alternative to endangering the public people? Well it's to test these products. We use animals to test these product so that people don't get hurt.

Questions?

1. Pro what would an alternative be to test cosmetics?
2. If no alternative would you prefer endangering lives?

Opposing Argument#2:
These tests are tested on animals so that it will be safe for humans. However animals do die from these tests. The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want. Some people do have these animals as pets but most are disgusted by them. The rodents are mindless creatures with no personality or feeling.

Conclusion:
People want to smell good and look good. Cosmetics can do that for us. However it can be dangerous. So con what it comes down to is, endanger humans or rodents?

Sources
(http://www.humanesociety.org...)
(http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu...)
Debate Round No. 1
rightandwrong

Pro

Thank you con for accepting my debate.

In your first argument, you state,"Well what if a harmful ingredient was mixed into the publicly sold products. Many people could get hurt or even killed." Well, companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products. Ingredients like parabens and phlathes that have already been tested, are still in use. Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel.

In your second argument, you state,"The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want." That is a baseless reason to allow testing on animals. There is no evidence to show that cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. There is literally no evidence to support that claim.

Rodents indeed have a personality and emotions. Scientists have conducted many experiments to see if rodents have emotions. There is an abundant amount of evidence showing that rodents have an emotion and a personality. Is it right to test and harm animals just for beauty products?

Lastly, you asked me about an alternative to testing cosmetics. There are many alternatives. The website http://www.humanesociety.org... lists many alternatives that can save many animals from being tested on.

As you can see, animal testing is cruel and unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://beautyfool.com...

http://www.avoncompany.com...

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

http://www.mindbodygreen.com...

http://www.animalplanet.com...
TH3Antag0nist

Con

First off voters I would like to add that my opponent has changed the name of the debate to "Animal Rights". I however will continue debating the original debate "Testing cosmetic products on animals is wrong."

Counter Argument #1

In you opening paragraph you state," Well, companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products."
The reason companies put these product together is because they want money. They make money by selling cosmetics. If they can find some odd and out of proportion mixture to make a new color or smell they will. Now why do they use dangerous products you asked. Well if chemical combined correctly than the chemicals dangerous attributes can be balanced.
For example: NaCl, Sodium Chloride (Table Salt). This chemical formula bonds Na(Sodium) and Cl(Chlorine). To make simple table salt something people eat all of the time. Well here are the properties of Sodium and Chlorine by themselves.

Sodium:
1. Contact of sodium with water, including perspiration causes the formation of sodium hydroxide fumes, which are highly irritating to skin, eyes, nose and throat. This may cause sneezing and coughing. Very severe exposures may result in difficult breathing, coughing and chemical bronchitis. Contact to the skin may cause itching, tingling, thermal and caustic burns and permanent damage. Contact with eyes may result in permanent damage and loss of sight.
2. Sodium's powdered form is highly explosive in water and a poison combined and uncombined with many other elements.

Chlorine:
1. Breathing small amounts of chlorine for short periods of time adversely affects the human respiratory system. Effects differ from coughing and chest pain, to water retention in the lungs. Chlorine irritates the skin, the eyes, and the respiratory system. These effects are not likely to occur at levels of chlorine that are normally found in the environment.

2. Chlorine causes environmental harm at low levels. Chlorine is especially harmful to organisms living in water and in soil.

So as you can see Pro two highly reactive and dangerous elements combined make salt. So these cosmetic companies are not doing anything wrong by trying to combine dangerous chemicals.
You also state this," Ingredients like parabens and phlathes that have already been tested, are still in use." Well Pro as you said there is literally no evidence to prove this.
Finally you concluded your opening paragraph with this,"Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel." Well Pro I can tell you this, companies that test on rodents are not doing it because it's fun. They only care about money, they do not want to purposely hurt and kill animals.

Counter Argument #2:
My con says this as his second argument," In your second argument, you state,"The animals tested on range from rats,rabbits,guinea pigs, and mice. Every one of these animals are classified as rodents. These animals are already being hunted,exterminated, and abused. Cosmetic testing is getting rid of what people don't want." That is a baseless reason to allow testing on animals. There is no evidence to show that cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. There is literally no evidence to support that claim"

I was not trying to say cosmetic companies help exterminate rodents. I was trying to say that the reason they test on rodent is because so many people hate rodents. If they were testing on dogs and cats then people would riot. However they are not. Most people want these animals dead. I'm not saying everyone now but many people do.

In your answer to my question you cited a source that had some of the following alternatives:

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

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.

There are two reasons why these test are not used.
1. Effectiveness:
When ever you take a blood sample and test on it then we know it may be safe for blood. However there are many other human body part that have to be accounted for. The product could be dangerous to a liver or lungs. Testing blood will not help know that.
2. Cost and amount
The first alternative would cost too much money for these large corporations. The second alternative suggests volunteers. Which is very cost effective. However not everyone want to give their blood for cosmetic testing. Blood Donations to hospitals do not even receive enough yet you expect people to give to cosmetic testing?

Conclusion:
Testing Cosmetics on animals keeps humans happy and safe. It allows cosmetic companies to make profit as well.

Sources:
(http://www.lenntech.com...)
(http://www.lenntech.com...)

P.S.
Pro Wikipedia is not a credible source.
Debate Round No. 2
rightandwrong

Pro

First of all, my topic is animal rights. However, it is to large of a topic to discuss in one debate. I decided to choose one aspect of animal rights, cosmetics being tested on animals.

In you first counter argument, you stated,"The reason companies put these product together is because they want money. They make money by selling cosmetics. If they can find some odd and out of proportion mixture to make a new color or smell they will."Putting harmful ingredients in products is inexcusable. Also, your statement is irrelevant to the debate becuase we're talking about if its ethical to test products on animals. We're not talking about why companies are abusing animals.

You also stated,"Now why do they use dangerous products you asked. Well if chemical combined correctly than the chemicals dangerous attributes can be balanced."I never asked why they use harmful ingredients, I was simply stating that companies shouldn't be putting harmful ingredients in their products.

I'm going to bypass the three paragraphs about sodium and chlorine becuase they are also irrelevant to the debate. This is because I never once mentioned anything about combining harmful chemicals.

You stated,"So as you can see Pro two highly reactive and dangerous elements combined make salt. So these cosmetic companies are not doing anything wrong by trying to combine dangerous chemicals." I see your point, but I am not talking about combining dangerous ingredients to make other things like salt. I'm talking about companies who blatantly throwing harmful ingredients like parabens and phlathes.

You also stated,"You also state this," Ingredients like parabens and phlathes that have already been tested, are still in use." Well Pro as you said there is literally no evidence to prove this."Actually there is evidence to support my claim. If you bothered to read the website,

http://www.mindbodygreen.com...

you'd know that there is evidence. Here's another website that tells about the risks of phlathes which are in many products.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

When I said,"Animal testing is unnecessary and cruel."I was saying that there are other alternatives and that companies shouldn't be abusing animals for their own gain. When you said,"Well Pro I can tell you this, companies that test on rodents are not doing it because it's fun. They only care about money, they do not want to purposely hurt and kill animals."

I understand that companies aren't doing it for fun. That was not was not what I was saying from that statement. And Again, I understand that companies do it for money, but we're talking about if it is right or wrong to abuse animals.

In your second argument you stated,"I was trying to say that the reason they test on rodent is because so many people hate rodents."The reason companies test on rodents is because it's easy to exploit animals. They do not do it becuase people hate rodents. I don't know where your getting your information. You also stated,"If they were testing on dogs and cats then people would riot. However they are not."Companies do test on dogs and cats. Your information is false.

In your paragraphs about alternatives of animals testing, you talk about how its ineffective and costly. Well, these alternatives are actually more effective and less costly. Human tissue is 77-84% accurate compared to animals testing which is 52-60% accurate. They are also less costly. Human tissue testing is a fraction cost of animal testing.

You said,"Testing Cosmetics on animals keeps humans happy and safe. It allows cosmetic companies to make profit as well." So it's okay for companies to create a profit by exploiting animals?

Also con, Wikipedia is a reliable source. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can see the references.

I'd also like to point out that my opponent has provided a large quantity of false information.

Looking forward to your response.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

http://pets.thenest.com...
TH3Antag0nist

Con

TH3Antag0nist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rightandwrong

Pro

I guess my opponent forfeited.
TH3Antag0nist

Con

TH3Antag0nist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by rightandwrong 3 years ago
rightandwrong
Every person I argue against always forfeits.
Posted by rightandwrong 3 years ago
rightandwrong
I agree, good point kenziebaker.
Posted by kenziebaker 3 years ago
kenziebaker
I don't think they should be used on animals, but not on people either.
If anything do it on themselves.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"I am against the testing of cosmetic products on animals."

The resolution should mention something like that don't you think?
No votes have been placed for this debate.