The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
glaciersnake
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animal Testing Should be Banned

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 1 vote the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 40433
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

Fell free to debate ANY WAY YOU WANT (as long as it is serious :))

Animal testing has been a long-time argument between many people. Should it stay or should it be banned? I think it should be banned.
Humans are very intelligent and evolved creatures. Why do we need animal testing? Why can't we do it on OURSELVES? We're hurting poor, innocent creatures to do things that are unlikely to succeed. In fact, we are abusing, hurting, and even BURNING over 100 million animals a year [1]! Some people would willingly accept a testing job (even though the consequences could be dire.) When you think about it, humans are animals. We're locking poor innocent animals in cold cages, like a jail. If anything, human criminals should be used for testing.
A homicide was committed on 11/06/13 in Los Angeles [2]. When the culprit is caught, he will have already killed a person. He had taken someones free will, and his should be taken also. Usually, a death penalty would come into place. But instead of a death penalty, he should be put up for dangerous testing that we use on animals. A person would be punished and something good may come out for humanity. That is called SAVING two birds with one stone.

[1] http://www.dosomething.org...
[2] https://www.crimereports.com...

Good luck to anyone who accepts this challenge!!!
glaciersnake

Con

Hello! I accept your challenge. I guess I will be taking the CON side for this.
Okay. First of all, this subject is very subjective. By this I mean that it relies heavily on your own opinion, so there may be a lot of back and forth. This may sound a bit cruel, but your argument uses a lot of words that invoke pity, such as this: "we are hurting poor, innocent creatures" "We're locking poor, innocent animals". I would like to stay on a purely factual basis. Also, your second reference is of no use to your argument. Anyways, On to the debate! :)

In your round, you did not address why we need animal testing. Most people don't even consider that. There are many reasons why we need it, including purposes such medicine. You may argue that many mice and such get cancer from these testings; the cruel truth is, that is the reason that they are used. To detect wether or not it would cause cancer.

Animal testing is the main reason why most medical discoveries are discovered. Without it, we would not have many necesseties in life today, such as ashma inhalers. See http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk....

Thank you for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge!

"Also, your second reference is of no use to your argument."
It actually is, as I said a homicide was committed in Los Angeles, and I needed a source for that (read my first argument and you will see why it is relevant to the argument.) I am also sorry for invoking pity, but it actually is the truth. Even though I will attempt to steer away from the pity side of this argument, I will still say things like that. As you pointed out, this debate will get heated and back and forth. Best of luck from here!

For example, we are actually locking animals in cages without lighting for our own sake. As my opponent said :"Animal testing is the main reason why most medical discoveries are discovered. Without it, we would not have many necesseties in life today, such as ashma inhalers." This statement my opponent is not only reliable, but also 100% factual. But my point is why do we have to do it on animals? Look anywhere on the web, and you will find articles about bullying other people. But what makes US so high and mighty. In a way, aren't we "taking away the animals free will," or in other terms, bullying them? Why can't we do this to ourselves, and what makes us so much better than the animals?

I will now turn to an earlier argument of mine: using criminals for testing. Being in jail is a big punishment, but I'm sure being tested is worse. We can:
a) Punish someone for his/her wrongdoing
b) Attempt to find new cures for diseases
c) Have more reliable testing sources (Mouse contains 95% of human genes [2], human contains 100%.)
As we all have probably read somewhere in the news, crime rates are going up and jails are overflowing. In 2008, there were 2.3 MILLION people in jail... in the U.S alone [1]. Now say we test about 1 in 10 crimes (serious ones) and submit the subjects into testing. We now have 230,000 people to test. We have so many drugs we have been waiting to test on humans (i.e diabetes) that we would be able to test. So why not use ourselves and find some cures for diseases? I'm sure more than just criminals would be willing to do it.

My opponent suggested a link containing 40 facts that both helped his case and didn't help his case. I turned my mice argument against him, so look at the link to further understand my arguments. I will now turn to use some facts about animal testing which would be better off with human testing.

1.Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected IN ANIMALS. That does nothing so far to help humans. If we had done that on humans right off of the bat more (good) lives would've been saved instead of probably killing more animals to get there than scientists are going to save. What surgeon is going to preform open-heart surgery on an animal?

2. Animal research is responsible for the development of asthma inhalers; asthma still kills around 2,000 people in the UK every year. "Yet it still kills around 2,000 people in the UK ALONE." Considering we killed well over a million animals to get there...
*Please note that all of my opponents arguments are valid.

Now I will say some reasons from my own link [3] that animal testing should be banned.

1. 92/100 drugs that pass in animals FAIL in humans. [3] [4] (This was so surprising I had to check twice!)
2. Hand soap, eyeliners, and food ingredients are among t things animals are being tested for. Looking good at a prom is worth over ten thousand animals lives?
3. Forward thinking scientists have made equally efficient non-animal testing methods.
4. It’s mandatory for all products to be tested on animals in China. And if it fails, it kills a bunch of animals. Just put a label on it that says: BUY AT OWN RISK
5. According to the Humane Society, registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as many as 12, 000 animals. Think about that next time you bite into a non-organic grape.
6. Tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses. And some people are saying abortion is wrong... what about this?!

So as you can see, we need to stop animal testing. On to the con part of the debate. Thank you very much for reading!

[1] http://www.naacp.org...

[2] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

[3] http://www.peta.org...

[4]http://www.dosomething.org...


THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING!!!

glaciersnake

Con

Hello. Thank you for showing me your arguments. This time, my post will be very short; I had a lot of stuff going on today + tomorrow, so I have to hit the sack soon. Also, try to make the next debate longer than 1 day per round; I don't think it's enough time. First off, another quote demonstrating my points [1]. anyway, here are my positions.

" In a way, aren't we "taking away the animals free will," or in other terms, bullying them?"

This is a bit true, but for this we have purpose. In bullying, it is normally for no good reason, but this is different. As evident in my previous link, and in my first post, we have a very good reason for doing this.

"Why can't we do this to ourselves?"

In all honesty, it is because there are not enough volenteers. Of course, you said that we could use people from the death row, but the fact is, there is not enough people there either. in fact, there are only about 3000-4000 people in the death row. This is not nearly enough to replace the amounts of animals that are used [2].

Now for your own reasons.

1. I don't really understand. Can you be more clear?

2. Both hand soap and food ingredients are practical and useful. Yes, eyeliner seems a bit extreme, but you get the point (sorry time pressed)

3. Like what? give me a few examples.

4. Seriously? You would let a product that killed animals with 90 % simaler genetic code come into our stores? That is the very REASON that we use animal testing (refer to [1]).

5. A "single pesticide" could improve and even save many human lives [3].



[1]. http://www.ox.ac.uk...
[2]. http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...
[3]. http://www.croplifeamerica.org...

Very very sorry for the poor debate. As I said, I am pressed for time. I will give valid arguments for round 3. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

I am sorry for the short time period.

"Both hand soap and food ingredients are practical and useful."
Yes, they are useful. But are they useful enough to kill well over a million animals? We just need to be able to do it without harming the animals. Our scientists are likely one of the smartest people on Earth. We put a man into space. We put a man on the moon. We've had a spacecraft check our Neptune. Yet we cant figure out a way to make good products without harming people.
Also, how many brands of hand soap do we need?! I am looking at brands of soap on Walmart.com [1], and 170 search results just showed up. Say we used just 5, and more than a million, perhaps even ten million, animals would be saved. What I'm saying here is, I'm fine with VERY small quanities of animal testing. But only when it is absolutley neccesary. And 170 Walmart brands of hand soap are not neccesary!

"Not enough to replace the amounts of animals that are used."
That is true, but thanks for giving me the link to how many animals have been used for animal testing. I've been looking all over for that.
•270,000 animals are tested per day. [2]
•Thats 3 per second [2]
•The first vacciene was made in 1796. According to the site [2], that's about... 300 years. 3 billion animals killed/tested. Let that sink in.
So it is not enough to replace the amount of animals used, but it is an upgrade. 4,000 people to finalize tests in.

"In bullying, it is normally for no good reason, but this is different. As evident in my previous link, and in my first post, we have a very good reason for doing this."
Here are some common bullying reasons: "You're fat, ugly, etc." To animals: "You are so far lower than us that we have to test highly dangerous shots and inject them into you because our mighty race of 7 billion people are so much better than all of you bunnies anrats combined. Therefore, you're going to die because we are so much mightier than you and we need to save ourselves. Thank you for participating!"
Ok... that was a bit dark. But we might as well literally say that to their faces right before we kill them.

We should stop animal testing and stop it before we hurt even more.




Stop Animal Testing.



glaciersnake

Con

Please stop posting pictures. It's not fair for my case.

Before turning back your new arguments, I would like to point out a flaw in an old one that I noticed. Using criminals for testing is unconstitutional; it could be classified as 'cruel and unusual punishment.'

"Yet we can’t figure out a way to make good products without harming people."

more suggestive language. You called the animals people, something that they are not.

How do you suggest that we test our useful products without using animals? I have already shown why it is not logical to use criminals. Even if they are not on the death row, these tests could kill them, giving more punishment than they were assigned.

"Also, how many brands of hand soap do we need?!"

I give you credit here. It is a bit unnecessary to use that many animals. It is human nature, however, (and you may argue that human nature is wrong) to want to compete and conquer the competition, and need to have room to do that. Not the best point, I know, but it's what I feel.

"300 years. 3 billion animals killed/tested. Let that sink in."

Yes, but the answer why is obvious. 300 years is not a short period of time. it is reasonable that we should have to use that many animals; and you make it sound like the only reason we use it is for hand soap and eyeliner. As previously stated, it helps modern medicine develop. There are SO many different types of vaccines out there, and they're all very necessary. and, you say it like vaccines are the only reason we use animals.

By the way, take the time to read this article [1], in which he states that "I think animal research is a necessary evil. It’s not an ideal tool, but it’s the best one we have, and it does more good than not." I agree completely. It is not like I want to kill animals, but it is important. The website also gives many reasons why. Check it out.

"We might as well literally say that to their faces right before we kill them."

It's not like we just "kill them." "You are so far lower than us that we have to test highly dangerous shots and inject them into you because our mighty race of 7 billion people are so much better than all of you bunnies anrats combined." No, it's not like that. Do you think that people do this for enjoyment?

Anyway, thank you for my first debate. I am enjoying this! :)

[1] http://elm.washcoll.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you, I am enojoying this too!!!!

"It is human nature, however, (and you may argue that human nature is wrong)"
Human nature isn't wrong, but rather neccesary. I just down think in this specific example (of the soap) that it is wrong. I am fine with reasonable human nature, like maybe two different soap brands, instead of 150.

"Please stop posting pictures. It's not fair for my case."
It is completley fair for me to post pictures, and you can, also. I need it to prove some points for my case, even if it seems unfair. Sorry about this.

"There are SO many different types of vaccines out there, and they're all very necessary."
That is true. But vaccienes are not availible to all parts of the world; so the people it does save can't quite make up to the amount of animals killed. I see it likes this:
If a person is a type of animal,
a type of animals should be seen as a person.

Sorry for the lousy debate, I've just stated everything I can. We should debate sometime again!
Thank You!
glaciersnake

Con

glaciersnake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by glaciersnake 3 years ago
glaciersnake
OH NO... It expired. I am truly sorry dtaylor, I guess the clock ran out on me. I hope this one round does not cost me. It was entirely my fault, so... good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 19debater19 3 years ago
19debater19
dtaylor971glaciersnakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: CON forefitted. If he didn't, it would've been a total tie.