The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Animal Testing is Inhumane and should be illegal

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,615 times Debate No: 49233
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I belive that Testing on Animals inhumane and should be illegal. Con will debate otherwise.

Cite Your sources
Correct spelling/grammar

Enjoy :)


I accept. My argument will be that the premises of animal testing do not invoke a notable amount of inhumanity and that it should not be entirely illegal.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting

My reasons:

Animal feel Pain

Animals do feel pain just like me and you. When we test animals we will usually stick chemicals in their eyes and down their throat to see if the animal feels pain, well it does. Would you want to be stabbed in the eye or have a chemical bath for your favorite soap company? Well I wouldn't. I have pets at home and I love them and you might too, would you want them to be bathed in hot chemical then be skinned alive. I sure don't! So why is a helpless rabbit that was born into this or was never adopted at a shelter okay to be tested on for your well being?

Why Can't We test the People we have in Jail instead

That will make it a heck of a lot easier then to test on poor, helpless animals. The United States can save a bunch of money also and it can give us humans knowledge that if a human can use the cleaning products we can't too. We could also save a bunch of animals and use thoughts jails for something good like schools police stations or library's.



Firstly, I'd like to ask my opponent a question for clarification of this debate's rules and parameters.

To my opponent: Being that it is that the rules dictate a correct use of conventional grammar and spelling, is it out of bounds for me to point out grammatical and spelling errors made? I'm typically not very strict as long as the point is made, but the rules seem to obligate that I point them out. Is it optional? Is it mandatory? Is it advised against? I'd like to be clear on how we're dealing with that. That's all. /opponent

Society's Sympathizations to Species Sans-Human

It's pretty obvious that animals deserve our attention if anyone deserves our attention. Animals often surpass humans in many areas of intelligence, strength, and speed, and have more practical use in our society than what they're used as today (tortured, eaten, and all that other stuff that my opponent will most surely mention).

Of course, the body of scientific knowledge that led up to this is exactly that: Scientific knowledge. Knowledge deduced, induced, and abduced through scientific rigor. We know what we know of animals through research, experimentation, and testing.

Testing is vital to our understanding of the natural world. We test several phenomena under specific circumstances to understand them. That's simply what it is. We test on humans all the time, and are doing so right now, why should animals be any different or "special?" We could treat animals differently from us in terms of ethics and such, but that doesn't ensure that that treatment would be humane. So, just as we test humans with science, we should treat animals with the same rigor.

The only problem I can see is the lack of consent. They're born, and they're tested. However, if the standard of living is sufficient for those tested, I don't see the problem. Consent is not necessary for humans when they are born into a government in which the standard of living is sufficient. Born into a nation with sufficient resources to feed and nurture everyone, is one not a citizen until they have the age to give consent for such things? In the same sense, do we have to condition an animal to learn between two choices so that they understand to give consent every time? We have the ability to do that, but it would be inefficient and unnecessary.

That is my argument for why animal testing is vital and should not be illegal.

With my arguments made, I'd like to rebut my opponent with the remainder of this round.

Obligatorily Opposing My Opponent's Obligings

My opponent's first point is that animals feel pain. My opponent states that when we test animals, the procedure involves sticking chemicals down their eyes, as an example of testing being inhumane.

There is absolutely no evidence that this is part of any standard procedure in typical animal testing. My opponent cites no sources, despite dictating in the rules of this argument that that is a necessity. So far, my opponent has broken the majority of the rules set by their own self.

The claim that this is something that's done to ensure that their capacity in pain is sufficient for testing is a rather big claim, so I don't understand why my opponent would breeze right past it without properly giving a source.

The next point my opponent makes is that people in jail make stronger candidates for testing.

In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!

In the case that my opponent did misspell/miscommunicate what was meant to be communicated, it's worth noting that experiments were done on prisoners for a very long time. The protection of prisoners was heightened recently due to abuse of scientific conduct. I don't see it as being a dilemma, an ultimatum between animals and prisoners. They're all worth testing. Disqualifying a batch is unfortunate, but we've still got batches aplenty.

To my opponent: Of utmost urgency, I'd like you to address the following points first: Clarification of the rules; How animal testing is inherently inhumane. The rest can be replied and rebutted to in your own time and pace. Thank you. /opponent
Debate Round No. 2


I am not strict on my rules only for forfeiting a debate, You could have only forfeited on round and come back and i'm okay with that but if you keep forfeiting and leave me a plain debate that goes over the line. I don't even have the best spelling/grammar so I let that pass unless you are on a Pre- K spelling level.

Most makeup companies will stick stuff in their eyes. A good one to start with is L'Oreal. They use Rats, Apes, and Rabbits to test their makeup on. We are closely related to Apes so chimps will have chemicals that are in the Makeup stuck up in the eye by needles.

As I said earlier, animals are born into it. These Animals always fear death and pain. Humans don't, we wake up, eat, go to work then fall back to sleep. These animals wake in a cage, sometimes are fed and will fear if its their day to have some needle in their eyes.

In case my opponent actually means jail instead of prison, I'm going to make an argument against that. What!? Being in jail does not strip you of all citizen and consensual rights! That's not how jail works!

Some people get out of prison, some don't. Many people have life terms in prison and are sitting down and doing nothing. They had to do something to get there right? Those animals were just breed to die. We could just use the Humans the killed a couple people then a animal that was breed to die.


TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I hope my oppent returns


To my opponent: I apologize sincerely for losing a Round and you have my fully extended gratitude for not taking advantage of that. You've noted that you're more nonchalant regarding the forfeiture of Rounds, which is a true relief as well. I'll try to make this Round count to compensate for any sunken costs. /opponent

Now, my opponent's argument in the previous Round starts off with a counter-argument for what I said about a lack of proof for animal testing requiring aforementioned abuse, to which my opponent mentioned makeup companies.

I think this is a poor argument, as my opponent is arguing to ban animal testing altogether. Yes, it's absolutely insane to stab rats in their eyes for the sake of slight, temporary aesthetic appeal, but one faction abusing a power does not necessitate banning the power altogether.

We've learned so much through animal testing. Do you know what the Monty Hall Problem is? It's named after the host of a show called "Let's Make A Deal." In the game, you are presented three doors. Behind two doors are unwanted prizes. Behind one door is a wanted prize. You are to choose one door, a one in three chance of getting your prize. However, instead of immediately opening that door, another door, containing an unwanted prize, is opened, leaving the door you chose and the other, unopened door to choose between, with the option to switch.

So, analyze this. If you pick an unwanted door, then you will have a wanted prize as the alternate solution. If you pick a wanted door, you will have an unwanted prize as the alternate solution. There is a two out of three chance you'll pick an unwanted prize, meaning that there is a two out of three chance that switching over gets you your wanted prize and a one out of three chance that keeping your original choice would be optimal.

Despite this logic, humans have been found to be frightfully conservative in their decision. Pigeons, on the other hand, were able to figure it out through the simplest way possible: Empirical statistics.[1]

We never would have known this of pigeons had it not been for animal testing. Animal testing isn't all eye stabbings and chemical showers. We often test animals to learn more about them, to understand more about us. Banning animal testing altogether!? Keeping people ignorant of the capabilities of animals would only serve to have people mistreat them even more. If people knew the facts regarding the intelligence and emotional complexity of animals, I would venture to postulate that animal abuse would at least slightly decrease in spite of my cynical views.

Not testing animals at all, while well-intentioned, is a terrible solution. Regulation, perhaps. Banning? Because of makeup companies, we ought to halt science altogether? If we thought like that about everything, we'd still be amidst a world of endless, unnecessary cruelty.

As for the testing of criminals, I don't see why that idea is incompatible with testing on animals.

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
Well, my opponent might not like prioritizing human life over animal life arbitrarily, so I'm not going to use that argument. I don't bring my personal views into debates (that way, I can debate any side of any debate without feeling like it's a violation of myself), but it just so happens that I'm not fond of that either. I'm what super macho guys would call a wuss vegetarian.

Notwithstanding my predisposition to being a p*ssy, strangers hardly ever give me satisfying arguments for a carnivorous lifestyle. My friends offer far more of a fight for their meat. I wish I could have a vegetarianism debate that was actually entertaining.
Posted by Pettrucio 2 years ago

Animal testing good. It saves thousands of lives. I'm alright with the moral implications of prioritizing human life over animal life. Done.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct on forfeiture(Pro you didn't specify it either as an offense or something acceptable, you just said "its ok"), In light of this certain issue, I will instead use standard voting rules that a forfeiture warrants a conduct point. so Conduct to Pro. BoP was on Pro to prove All Animal testing are inhumane. Round 2 was clearly Con though the last round Con won on hypothetical considerations and the subject of '1 out a million' company. Pro's argument were examples of how animals were when they are tested, Con rebutted that as it is inevitable through the use of learning. Pro dropped half of Con's contentions so the debate clearly leans towards Con. Thus, Con wins this ultimately by shifting to 'not all animal testing are inhumane, therefore it shouldn't be banned'. 3 points to Con. Side Note: bettabreeder, try not to deal with absolutes, as it is incredibly hard to upheld a 100% substantiating case. A more reasonable resolution would be 'Animal testing is generally inhumane'.