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

Animal Testing is essential

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 805 times Debate No: 53834
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Argument is that animal testing is essential.

Round 1: Is for acceptance
Round 2: Main reasons
Round 3: Counter argument
Round 4: Concluding note


I accept this debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Animal research has played a part in nearly every medical advancement over the past decade. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research. Modern painkillers, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin and many more drugs all relied on animal research in their development. Also it's not just medicine. Many people wear make-up, many people wear hair-styling products etc. All these different products rely on animal testing in the stages of manufacture, without animal testing these products would be unsafe to use. At current, there is no viable alternative which could completely replace animal testing in trials therefore making animal testing essential.


The topic of this debate is whether animal testing is essential. I will argue that animal testing is in fact NOT essential.

We can start of by putting aside all arguments concerning the testing of cosmetic products on animals, since these products are hardly 'essential' to humans. It therefore follows that the testing of such product on animals is not essential either.

Animal testing also occurs in the case of medicine, where most people would perhaps view it as 'less wrong' than in the case of cosmetic. But what a lot of people don't know, is that there are alternative methods of testing medicines;

1) CeeTox, which predicts the level of toxicity and the chance of success of a new drug.

2) Organs-on-Chips are chips that virtually reproduce a specific organ in order to predict its reactions to a certain drug.

3) Testing human blood and human cells is also a good way to predict the effects of a new drug.

You can find more alternative methods here:

It is also important to note that animal testing is not always efficient; many animal-friendly drugs have turned out to be harmful to humans. That is the case for HIV, some cancers, diabetes, heart problems, and many others.

Debate Round No. 2


Making a link to PETA! Probably the most bias organisation in any animal rights debate. Obviously I do have concerns for animal rights and I feel where possible alternatives should be used but I feel at this point in time they are not good enough and animal testing is pivotal.

The alternatives you have suggested such as Ceetox have flaws, I have scoured there whole website and I cannot find any text or document which mentions any significant success of their products.

Again, the problem with the chips is described well in this Scientific American article ( "the chips may not capture certain crucial aspects of living physiology the way whole animal tests do". "If you don"t use as close to the total physiological system that you can, you"re likely to run into troubles".

Furthermore through testing human blood or human cells you can"t see the way the whole physiological system of the human body is going to be affected.

On contrary to your last point, many more animal-friendly drugs have proved to be effective in humans. Even if they have caused harm to humans they can be manipulated and eventually evolve to become successful. Let"s think about the greater good of animal testing, all the positives it"s brought about for people (and animals themselves) suffering from conditions such as diabetes and cancers.

Although I can see your point with cosmetics not been essential I am pretty sure many humans would not want to give up their products. The US FDA includes in its description of cosmetics anything which is applied to the human body for "cleansing". So we have to think beyond make-up, Vaseline and lip balm are even included in the cosmetics category. Many of these items are not used for beauty but for human health. Therefore many cosmetics items should be viewed as essential.


Burncastle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


daniel1005 forfeited this round.


I would like to apologize for forfeiting Round 3; I was away and did not have an Internet connection. I would like to thank my opponent for forfeiting his Round 4, giving us an equal number of rounds. Now on to the debate.

First of all, cosmetics are described as product that enhance appearance, not health, by many sources:


So one cannot say that they are essential.

My opponent takes issue with the fact that I used a link from PETA, accusing it of being biased. The thing is, whether or not a certain organization is biased does not affect in ANT WAY the legitimacy of their claim; it may prompt someone to confirm what they are saying, but one cannot dismiss anything they say on the sole basis that they are biased.

Yes, all of the alternatives that I've described have flaws, but so does animal testing. If we combine all of the alternatives method, I believe we can get results that are far superior than animal testing. Here are a few other alternatives (they all have flaws, obviously):

- Medical imaging
- SEURAT-1 (
- Euroecotox

For more:

In conclusion, I agree with my opponent that animal testing is useful, although I disagree that it is essential.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 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 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to prove his original assertion that animal testing is essential. Con makes a good case against this assertion.