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

Animal Testing for Cosmetics

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 96830
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics?
By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc.
This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics.
My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals.
Cruelty: text book definition 2


I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases.

And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.
Debate Round No. 1


I am only debating about animal testing for cosmetics, your argument is not centered around that topic. I stated my reasons for cosmetic animal testing, and specifically said not drug testing on animals. The solutions to the diseases you listed have to do with drug testing.


Ah, that would be a problem. Well okay so there's still a good argument to be made for it.

to assess what stays from my last post: rats are still a alternative to humans that if disallowed from testing on create a environment which has to gamble on human lives or not try potentially beneficial products altogether. Imagine I've reconsidered all morals I had since the election results.

First of all cosmetics are a important and valuable part of our society it's not essential but they're beneficial. Appearance is undoubtedly a incredibly important part of any modern life. Physiologists agree that first impression are the strongest and hardest to change assessment of another person, people also experience the phenomena called the halo effect that's when someone assessing you (professionally or casually) identifies a strong positive trait ,like a exceptional appearance, they are more likely view other your other traits as being positive e.g the same person can be viewed as driven or bossy based on a good or bad first impressions. Cosmetics also help self esteem, when someone gets a zit or any time of blemish they can use cosmetics to help make it less noticeable and not worry about if other people are aware of it. Make up helps people achieve the look they want including not naturally available looks like bright pastels or dark Gothic colors to manage your outer appearance and vibe.

Cosmetics also are large economic business employing many workers and chemists. It also encourages spending which is good in a market economy. And many can make a hobby of it learning to contour or color theroy to help manifest their ideal image of themselves .

Rene Descartes the father of the scientific method in his discourse on method famously said "I think therefore I am" he proposed that this is a major distinction between animals and humans. Human think, animals with less complex and developed brains have yet to reach a point where they can override instinct and truly consider and understand their actions and surroundings. Rats are alive and feel pain but so do most things considered alive, plants have a response to stimuli that is comparable to when animals with a nervous system and brain experience painful stimuli. Harvesting our food can similarly cause pain experienced by some lab rats. Rats are invasive species that spoil food and spread diseases without pest control methods like chemicals and traps our way of life could be considerably damaged their existence is crucial to a cycle of life but lack benefit and therefore are a prime candidate compared to other more benificial animals. And in the end many aren't that inconvenienced many cosmetics are considered safe and do no hard and the rats and in the end the rats are rewarded with food possibly keeping some rats that would be unable to thrive in nature alive.
Debate Round No. 2


Human lives are rarely threatened by final cosmetic products, unless an individual is severely allergic to a topical ingredient in the product, in which case they should avoid it. There is no point to testing products on animals if there is not a possible major risk to the consumer.

I am not suggesting the notion that humans stop using cosmetics as a whole. I am arguing that using animals to test cosmetic products is unnecessary. The importance of cosmetics to ones self-esteem on the surface has little relevance to the notion of animal testing, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why this is related to animal testing for cosmetics and define your terms.

I will not debate whether the animals are alive or not. Also, I fail to see the direct relevance this has to cosmetic testing on animals, please relate this back to the debate topic.


Some cosmetics can hurt human participants especially when they include ingredients like harmful chemicals, heavy metals, bacteria, and other hazardous things.

The argument as to why cosmetics was important was to show the necessity they were tested that included the argument of their benefits to self esteem. If a product is not worth making it's not worth testing I've seen some people downplay the importance of cosmetics for the sake of their argument.

The cogito statement wasn't to prove animals weren't alive i was saying that they aren't on the level of human thought and comprehension and therefore should testing on them isn't on the same level as testing on humans morally. Technically it would prove animals are alive since you are able to know you're alive, with the exception of solipsists.
Debate Round No. 3


Although human lives are not at risk by many of the chemicals placed into cosmetics, the chemicals can still cause damage to the consumer. Certain ingredients in cosmetics can be deemed "safe for use" when in actuality the ingredients can still be hazardous, but are still used in the final cosmetic product. One example of this is a common chemical found in red lipstick known as Methylparaben. Methylparaben has been linked to accelerating and causing the growth of cancer cells in the body. This specific chemical is deemed as a moderate hazard, but is still used even though it can cause serious damage to people using it. If something is going to be deemed hazardous but still used anyway, what is the point of animal testing in the first place if the whole point of it was to deem the ingredients safe for use?

Testing is not a direct measure of worth for a product. Cosmetics may be important to society, but the testing of those cosmetics on animals has no direct affect on the importance value of the product to the consumer. Most consumer do not care if a product was tested on animals or was not tested on animals. If cosmetics are as important to society as you say then the purchasing of the cosmetics by the consumer should not cease just because animals were not used in the testing process. If the presence of animals during the testing process is insignificant to the consumer, then why is it still necessary?

Descartes was attempting to define the difference between humans and other animals with his famous quote famous "I think therefore I am". His statement has no direct relation to whether testing on humans is less or more moral than testing on animals. Humans biologically are animals, the same as rats. If humans are animals then stating that "testing on them (animals) isn't on the same level as testing on humans" is implying that animals in the set of human are somehow more important than animals in other sets. Evidence of self awareness is not a good measure of the value of life, since everything is equally living, be that life a human animal or a rat animal.


The point is to try and find every danger that you can letting a hazardous chemical through like that is a fault of the people testing it.

The reasoning wasn't that testing makes cosmetics more important it's that the important of cosmetics means that it doesn't waste time when it tests their products. The same argument I made in the first round when i defended it's use to cure diseases. The tests are done for a good cause.

I'm going to ignore the part where you misread my comment and rephrase my last point. Yes humans are animals but animals like rats that are below the threshold to go against their instincts should not be considered with the same set of morals as humans.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
I agree with the instigator.
No votes have been placed for this debate.