The Instigator
dundar101
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
claypigeon
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. Are the deaths worth it>

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,069 times Debate No: 2449
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

dundar101

Con

I believe that animal testing is a cruel horrible thing. But this isn't about opinions, so on with the facts (and some opinions also)!

1. Over 3 million animals have been tormented all in the name of research. It has been found that only 5-25% of side effects caused by medicines are accurately predicted.

2. It can argued that animal experimentation can be beneficial and has helped find cures for some diseases. However the number of successes are very small. This could be due to differences between species, or due to the fact that these illnesses have been placed in the animals deliberatly.
Humans don't catch diseases in this way! Therefore would it not be more logical to use alternatives such as laboratory tests or computer simulators? These will do the job without any slaughter of innocent animals and it will stop inaccuracies caused by differences between species.

3. So why are animals used when the more logical solution would be to use alternative methods? the answer is simple - money. Animal experimantation is much cheaper - and what is the cruel destruction of animals compared to a pile of cash?

4. What would happen if I were to deliberatley give another human a fatal disease, if i were to electrocute, shoot or poison them? This would be considered immorally wrong and I would be labeled as a psycho, and I would most certainly be jailed for it. Yet scientists can do this on a daily basis and no one thinks twice. Are these scientist labeled in this way? No - if they do manage to get lucky and create something beneficial from the torture, then they are seen as heroes.

http://www.fazed.com...
claypigeon

Pro

Life on earth has evolved for billions of years. From the tiny prokaryote to the Dinosaurs of old to our current population species have relied on others to survive. There is a shortage of resources in this world and we all compete for them. Plants for example undergo temporal separation and spatial separation so that they germinate at different times of the year (so every plant can get enough sun) and so they don't grow in inefficient environments. What plants also do is allelopathy which is a nice word for poison. They poison their neighbors so they can survive. From Walnuts to Sages to Marijuana, poisons are made.

What does this tell us about humans. We, like all life, are in a race with every other living thing. Some things help us for now and some things hinder us. In a world where 15 million human children die of hunger per year, having something organic to test experimental crop techniques on is great. In a country where malaria kills millions, testing irradiation techniques on animals to kill the sperm let us perfect this technology for use on tsitsi flies which killed their populations (and stopped malaria). God forbid we ever needed to kill off our own sperm (I read a great short story with this premise) we know how we can do it.

What about the birds we sent down into the mines to test for gas. Countless human lives have been saved b/c of this. What about DDT testing on birds. If we didn't do this DDT might still be slowly killing us all, animals included.

Then there is the profit gained from animal testing. Money that can go towards helping others. If I test an animal and buy a car its bad but if I test an animal and save 100 others its good?

I can give plenty of examples of how testing has saved humans and/or animals. I am interested to know your framework for deciding who wins. Do you want to maximize biomass or total cells? Is a cow worth a human life?

On to some rebuttals.

4. Morality

We humans agree that we all have rights. We do not inherently have them. Our rights are on a piece of paper. We consent to these rights for many reasons. Should animals have them too? Maybe, but currently they don't have them. That is why it is morally acceptable to kill/test an animal.

3. Cash is king and who says it is bad. The best course of action is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes computers work better than animals. Sometimes not.

2. Humans and animals catch diseases much in the same way. Marijuana developed its psychoactive qualities to poison insects from eating the plant. Marijuana affects insects almost exactly how it affects us. Our nervous systems are even more similiar in animals. Computer simulators sometimes fall short and there aren't adequate labs often where outbreaks occur. We can quickly test animals albeit inefficiently w/o labs. Sometimes the cost/benefit favors a lab, sometimes it doesn't.

1. So this is inefficient science. It still tells us something for little cost.

I hope to convince you to that animal testing can be good for humans, bad for animals, good for animals, bad for humans, or any combination of the three. Banning the testing outright would deprive us of many benefits. More humans would die and even if computers could be used studies would cost more (hence more people would be deprived of the study for longer or prices cost more so more people indirectly suffer).
Debate Round No. 1
dundar101

Con

Dear chicken dude thanks for joining this debate, i wish you luck, also you have made some very good points.

Your argument was very nice, but please note that this is for non-medical reasons "2. Humans and animals catch diseases much in the same way. Marijuana developed its psychoactive qualities to poison insects from eating the plant. Marijuana affects insects almost exactly how it affects us. Our nervous systems are even more similar in animals. Computer simulators sometimes fall short and there aren't adequate labs often where outbreaks occur. We can quickly test animals albeit inefficiently w/o labs. Sometimes the cost/benefit favors a lab, sometimes it doesn't. " This statement is based on medical things. Yes i do consider marijuana's effects a medical issue. Your #3 argument is is based on money, and technology, yes i do agree that money is important but is it worth a life? Think about it you wouldn't test a human would you, if someone even suggested it people would be all "Oh my God, are you crazy!" and all "Back away slowly..." So why is it different when someone suggests killing an animal? Because it's "less important than a human" also i really disagree with your #1 argument, yes the death of the animal sometimes does help, but it is only, in my opinion important in medical reasons that will help millions of humans and animals alike just for the death of a very few animals. But for cosmetics? So beauty really is that important to people now isn't it? And please note again that the title is "Animal Testing for non-medical reasons." Not for medical reasons. Also with your #4 argument has nothing to do with morality in my opinion, the animals not having rights shows their helplessness not that it is morally right to kill animals, does it? Also answering your question "Is a cow worth a human life?" is very hard it is a bit like those "who do you like better? your mom or dad?" Questions. But you make a point, i guess not... But why is it that the death of a million animals is taken as nothing compared to the death of 1 human? Also you are right that "animal testing can be good for humans, bad for animals, good for animals, bad for humans, or any combination of the three" but it is usually used to help humans, and if the animal lives without side effects then the animal testing is only 5 on the level of badness (from 1 to 10) of animal testing. But if it lives after being put through so much or it lives but its living conditions are bad then it is 11 on the 1 to 10 scale.

I am hoping to convince you than animal testing for non-medical reasons is cruel and wrong.
claypigeon

Pro

The avatar is actually the pokemon known as pidgeotto I believe. Or pidgey, I dunno :)

First off I just want to clear up the definition of medical. I assume we're talking about science and medicine and medicinal stuff that helps humans or animals. The only reason I did the whole medical spiel in my first argument was to address your #1 and #2 arguments which were on research. Feel free to disregard them as we are not arguing over medical testing.

Medical testing and our agreement on its virtues does bring up a valid point. It is alright to test animals if it helps humans medically. You stated in your second argument that a cow is often worth less than a human. If we simply made arguments based on what gave the most utility then if we could kill an animal to save a human in most circumstances this would be morally acceptable.

Or what if we could kill a cow to save two cows? Selective breeding and other genetic testing are examples of this. My argument relies on the viewer taking the opinion that not all life is sacred and we can weigh different specie's lives against one another. Whether it is sacrificing a bird in coal mines to save a miner or whether it is sacrificing something to help rid an environment of pests. There is no need to rehash my previous examples as they are still there.

Onto the rights argument. Humans have rights not because of some moral god out there bestowing us these rights. We have them because WE made them. Animals have only limited rights but I'll agree that they are helpless often. This does not make it moral to kill an animal for whatever reason but there is nothing immoral about killing an animal if the need is great enough. I consider myself a utilitarian so morals don't come into play with me. Disregarding my philosophy we can agree that killing an animal for medical reasons is alright if it saves enough people. If the need is there.

Onto the money argument. Animal testing whether its for beauty products or for pets or whatever is a huge market. I recently bought some fish and while looking at Petco I saw the coveted Glo-Fish. These guys were engineered to manufacture a protein that makes them glow underwater. Interestingly enough I am in california where it is illegal to sell them but they are at the stores. On topic, this company not only generates millions of dollars but the demand for fish is increased. Due to their testing, more fish are bought and money is made. Some fish of course died in testing but in return many more were made and money was made. Whats not to like? We can both think of other examples were money is made and animals are not harmed much so why bother putting down more. My point is money can be made from testing animals. If we can make money we can better the human condition. Humans are made better off from at least some animal testing. I can see how one might argue that most animal testing comes at too high a cost to animals so lets ban it all. I do not see animals as being close to equal to humans. If I could sacrifice one hobo to save a million cows I would not. Maybe you or others would.

My argument is still the same as before. Animal testing can be good for humans, medical or not, so why ban it? Thats the crux of my argument. Animals not having inherent rights is secondary. In this world of life against life, humans are worth more than our animal brethren.
Debate Round No. 2
dundar101

Con

dundar101 forfeited this round.
claypigeon

Pro

My argument is still the same as before. Animal testing can be good for humans, medical or not, so why ban it? Thats the crux of my argument. Animals not having inherent rights is secondary. In this world of life against life, humans are worth more than our animal brethren.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dundar101 8 years ago
dundar101
Humans are easy to kill as well, and how do you know they don't taste good. ericjpomeroy your argument is kinda not so smart if you think about it...
Posted by dundar101 9 years ago
dundar101
Sory i was 2 late for my last arguement. but again in my opinion only ok for medical reasons, i should have been more specific i meant more like animals being killed for cosmetics :) also yes meat does taste torturingly good but since i now only eat chicken and shrimp i cannot please my tastebuds :)
Posted by ericjpomeroy 9 years ago
ericjpomeroy
If animals didn't deserve to die then why did god make them so easy to kill? Not to mention how tasty they are.
Posted by dundar101 9 years ago
dundar101
HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. HI. GOODBYE. :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
dundar101claypigeonTied
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 
Vote Placed by debater123 9 years ago
debater123
dundar101claypigeonTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by dundar101 9 years ago
dundar101
dundar101claypigeonTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
dundar101claypigeonTied
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 
Vote Placed by chrrinma 9 years ago
chrrinma
dundar101claypigeonTied
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