The Instigator
ClumsyKlutz
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
MitchellDeYoung
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Animal Testing is Acceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/18/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 25,877 times Debate No: 7458
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

ClumsyKlutz

Pro

Ok, bear with me here. I'm new so, my arguments might be a little unjustified/unreasonable/emotion-filled.

Let's start.

Animal testing? Always heard of as bad. But here are some reasons that people should allow it.

1. People fear being tested on themselves.
Everyone fights against animal testing. However, many people will refuse to be tested on themselves. When it comes down to reality, humans will be too selfish/fearful to stand up for their causes.

2. Classic example. Your close relative is dying. The disease is new and there is no known cure.
Of course you would want the scientists to do all that they could to save your relative. Who wouldn't? Animal testing has cured a few diseases that might've ravaged our country or maybe even the world, today. Polio (might not be accepted as it took multiple experiments on monkeys and one final experiment on a human), cholera, syphilis and etc. Scientists have also found, through animal testing, some blockades to conditions like Diabetes and Asthma.

3. History would've been completely off.
Going for a theory here, if animal testing were eliminated from our country, it would be obvious that many diseases would still be running rampant throughout the world. You see on the news cases of people offering up their own bodies to science. However, these cases are extremely rare and if animal testing were completely banned, than our country would be lacking in anti-biotics and medical procedures that might help save a person's life.

4. Animal testing on the animals is fairly small compared to the whole species.
Let's face it. Animal testing is aimed at an average of about 115 million per year. It may seem like a lot, but there are two facts that undermine it.
A. Most likely that scientists will take about a hundred per species from different countries or the U.S. It will not kill the whole species or even put them at the risk of extinction. The animals will most likely breed back the numbers within a few months .

B. 115 million a year. Compare that to the number of animals in the U.S.

All I have for now! And by the way, I thank my opponent for a good debate. Whoever he/she is.
MitchellDeYoung

Con

I will just argue your points in order I suppose

1. People fear being tested on themselves.
Its true, people do not want to be tested on. But if that is the case why should we subject animals to do things we know are not in our best interest? No dog wants to be dyed 17 different shades of strawberry blond and neither does a human. It is unethical to test things on animals that we know are not beneficial to the person being tested.

2. Classic example. Your close relative is dying. The disease is new and there is no known cure.
Animal testing has helped in discovering cures before or around the time we started taking cells from humans to help cure diseases. What's being used to help find a cure for AIDS? Not pig cells, because no matter how close an animal is to the human cell structure, a human is a human. With current technology we can simply extract cells from humans to be tested on rather then harming an animal to look for a cure that they couldn't care less about.

3. History would've been completely off.
As stated in the second contention, yes animal testing was needed in the past but with current technology we do not need to subject animals to unfair treatment and unethical practice.

4. Animal testing on the animals is fairly small compared to the whole species.
Animals reproduce, and humans are animals. Humans produce as well so saying that testing is ok because "they will just repopulate" would need to be justifiable for all animals, that would include humans. This contention goes more in favor of the negative side because humans repopulate fast, just like most animals

id like to see how you respond to that before I bring my own points into the debate
Debate Round No. 1
ClumsyKlutz

Pro

Very nice rebuttal. Ok, I'll go in order again.

Its true, people do not want to be tested on. But if that is the case why should we subject animals to do things we know are not in our best interest? No dog wants to be dyed 17 different shades of strawberry blond and neither does a human. It is unethical to test things on animals that we know are not beneficial to the person being tested.

A. Unfortunately, cosmetics are not the only things tested on animals. People will not deny being guinea pigs for cosmetics for money, as the potential risk would be much lower than that of a dangerous disease. Same as before, people fear being tested on. I don't think that a human would prefer having something like Herpes or AIDS injected into them for testing. The animals fight back, but humans fight harder. We've made it so we're always protected and that animal testing is acceptable, so it's Humans 1 Undomesticated animals 0. (I have no idea if that answered your rebuttal, but if it did, give me a sign!)

Animal testing has helped in discovering cures before or around the time we started taking cells from humans to help cure diseases. What's being used to help find a cure for AIDS? Not pig cells, because no matter how close an animal is to the human cell structure, a human is a human. With current technology we can simply extract cells from humans to be tested on rather then harming an animal to look for a cure that they couldn't care less about.

A. Ah, this one is hard to go against, but I'll try! No matter how advanced our technology is currently, we still don't have enough knowledge to conduct a series of most likely needed tests. A few cells is worth nothing in the long run, and we'll need the structure completely. As for animals, they have the basic neccessities like us. Scientists will use them to avoid using humans, however, if they get close to finding a cure, they'll switch to a human. Example, polio. Scientists had conducted numerous experiments on monkeys, and through the information, they drew closer to finding a cure. Finally, when they thought they had achieved their goal, they switched the testing onto a human and took samples of their tissue. Through the information gained from testing on monkeys, the scientists managed to find a cure for polio for a human.

As stated in the second contention, yes animal testing was needed in the past but with current technology we do not need to subject animals to unfair treatment and unethical practice.

A. Stated in previous one. Our technology may be advanced but still not enough that we don't need a live specimen to examine.

Animals reproduce, and humans are animals. Humans produce as well so saying that testing is ok because "they will just repopulate" would need to be justifiable for all animals, that would include humans. This contention goes more in favor of the negative side because humans repopulate fast, just like most animals

A. For this one, it's the cruel truth. The animals will repopulate, and I'm taking the tyrannical view here, but to us humans, others lives are expendable as long as we remain unharmed. Actually, most military leaders have thought that human lives were expendable as long as the result was their victory. Take World War I. One side needed to dominate the other to justify the deaths of all the soldiers. It's the same for us, as long as the animals will repopulate themselves, (and there's a high chance that they will) it justifies our means if we find a cure in the end.

Your turn!
MitchellDeYoung

Con

1. I am aware that cosmetics are not the only thing being tested, but it was mearly an example showing that no one wants to be tested on, regardless of the test. Animals have no choice on if we test them or not, they cannot say no, they cannot file a law suit, they cannot fight back. Taking advantage of them simply because we can is almost as immoral as the testing in the first place. The majority of people do not want to be tested on, but some accept it as a job. This is moral because they are agreeing with the terms, animals cannot say no so therefore taking advantage of them is wrong.

2. Technology is advanced enough to keep cells alive to test on, without using a whole human. THings such as aids are on a microscopic level, you do not need an entire subject to see the effects. The cells alone are enough to conduct this research and i believe thats all that has to be done. Again polio was one of the cases i was reffering to when i said we used to have to use animals. Had we had the ability to sustain cell life in an artificial environment like we can now im sure it would have been much easier then having to fight a monkey off your back to obtain results.

3. Again, we have the technology to sustain cells in an artifical environment which means that after we get the initial samples we will no longer need the host subject to test on. Scientists will be able to see on the molecular level if the tests are effective are not, putting it back into the animal will not provide any different results so its pointless to do so.

4. All life in that case can said to be expendible but does that mean that its morally correct? If by killing a large majority of animals in a mass slaughter we can feed the earth and eliminte famine is it justified because the lives of the animals are expendible? I do not believe that this is the case and it seems to be what you are arguing. We could eliminate all of this death by taking the ideas stated in my second and third contentions and have these cells living in an artificial environment. It is possible and is currently happening. If we moved back into the cellular animal testing, we would be regressing in the field of medication because it is no longer neccissary to keep these live test subjects around when we can simply have their live tissue samples. Not only is it more ethical then using animals, but human tissue is much more co operitive then a chimp, a dog, or any other animal you can think of.

Go!
Debate Round No. 2
ClumsyKlutz

Pro

Wow, that was good! I don't think I'll beat it, but let's commence the final round!

1. Alone, human volunteers aren't enough, I'm going to be a broken record here but, humans are too SCARED to go through with it on their own. Of course animals are needed! Even if it is immoral, humans will mostly choose to live rather than to commit an act of immorality.

2. Cells can only get you so far! Have you heard of Professor Aziz? He's a neurologist who discovered deep brain stimulation. With only cells, it would've been impossible. Professor Aziz needed a live, working brain to study the mechanics and conduct experiments. Since it would've been potentially lethal, most people did not volunteer for this project, and Aziz had to use monkey brains. They work similarly to ours and it helped by giving him the breakthrough he needed!

3. Same thing as above, sorry.

4. Once again, the cells are not ENOUGH. We cannot use the mechanics of the cell to study something like the brain or etc. We need a living specimen. And to feed the earth, that's mass slaughter. However, once again, compare the numbers. It is ridiculously small compared to the number of animals in the U.S. Mass slaughter for food would probably eliminate half or even three-fourths of the animals in the U.S. We can't recover from that. However, testing only brings a few into play and not even that many of the same species! Going back to using cells for our experiments would not lead to any serious breakthroughs. It would take twice, maybe even triple the time it would take if we conducted experiments on living specimens. Besides, animals have parts related to ours. Monkeys are especially closely related (an obvious fact, but I'll state it anyway). We can use their parts and conduct experiments to help us find breakthroughs for diseases that have ravaged the world. Through experimenting on animals, we can find antibiotics to all the crippling conditions and harsh diseases.

I finish my argument with this: Animal experimentation is crucial as it has already found cures to many dangerous diseases in the past, and it will continue to do so!

Finish this DeYoung! Good luck and I want to thank you for an especially good first debate. You've been a good opponent, no, not just good, probably one of the best I've had to date, thank you!
MitchellDeYoung

Con

1. As far as being scared goes, obviously humans do not want to do these things that can possibly harm them, such as stated in your contention 2 and 3. Why do humans not want to do them? Because they are unethical. In order to test on a living brain, much damage has to be done to the test subject. We can avoid this almost entirely with a combination of 3d brain imaging technology, which offers the possibility of viewing a living brain, without harming the host. Do you think that its fair to be unethical in either case? Can we simply kill off mans best friend when there are alternatives? I do not think unethical practice leads to anything but trouble in the end, regardless of if it can achieve sucess, there are other options that are more ethical.

2. Again this is another example of outdated technology. He first found a lack of stimulation, through the technology i am talking about. How can we be sure that in every aspect the brains of humans and animals are the same? We would be comparing two things that we dont even know all that much about. It would be rash to use animal brains simply because "they are there" We need to take a step back and see that a more hightech and ethical way of testing these things must be used. They exist, so it would be silly to use animals in a damaging and not to metion life changing / ending test. We need to respect the creatures of this earth, we cannot morally subject anyone to cruel and unusual punishment as it goes against our ways as humans.

4. Cells are enough! What is the brain made up of? Cells. What is effected when these harmful sicknesses hit our bodies? Cells. Obviously if cells are the things being effected we can see the effects of our testing based on these. It is silly to overgeneralize a problem when we can look at the source. The breeding grounds for these diseases are the cells. By saying that we need a whole speciman to solve these issues would be like saying we need to search a whole building when we know someone is dying on the 34th floor. We know where these problems exist, it would be a waste of time and a waste of life for us to kill innocent creatures because we are too lazy. I understand that some things in the past have been solved by animals, but again that is in the past. If this is something we revert back to then what is to stop things like slavery from reoccuring? Slaves were helpful, mistreated and abused. You want us to do the same thing to our animals when we dont have to. I find that wrong and unethical in a variety of ways.

The case is quiet simple, the aff is asking us to revert back to primal ways because they work. I urge a vote in negation because inorder to solve new problems we must look to the future. We cannot simply go against our morals because it works, especially when new methods are avalible that aviod this issue completely.

Thank you for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ClumsyKlutz 7 years ago
ClumsyKlutz
Thanks for a great debate Mitchell!
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
People should die to preserve lab rats? Ridiculous.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I like Animal testing debates :)
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by moeinc 6 years ago
moeinc
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DSanteramo 7 years ago
DSanteramo
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JonathanSmits 7 years ago
JonathanSmits
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MitchellDeYoung 7 years ago
MitchellDeYoung
ClumsyKlutzMitchellDeYoungTied
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:05