The Instigator
boom101
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
rajun
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Animal Testing should be allowed

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
rajun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,629 times Debate No: 36376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

boom101

Pro

Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?
rajun

Con

I agree to debate against the topic,Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
boom101

Pro

Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :)

1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate?

2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually.

Thank you. :)
rajun

Con

Thank you, Pro. For your arguments. Now I will try best to counter it.

" A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well."

Well, As my worthy opponent says that a good deal of animals are used in the food industry, Pro, fails to realise that food industry is a high breeding industry too and no harm to the subsistence of animals is done in this industry. Does it mean that people are killing plants ruthlessly and causing extinction of wheat and rice plants? No. That is called agriculture and rearing animals for commercial purposes is called animal husbandry.(1)
(1)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandryR06;

" If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record!"

And nothing will happen to the population of the animals? A common example of what animal testing leads to is the situation of the Tokay gecko.(2)(3)
(2)http://www.dw.de...
(3)www.tokaygeckos.org/tokay-gecko-fact-sheetR06;

What happens is that when a species of animal is thought to have some medicinal cures, it is researched upon. slowly, the demand of this species grows and people come to know about it. Frequently, these species are found in areas which are full of poor people. Catching these animals and supplying them to buyers gives a lot of money. So, everyone follows the rule of catching these animals and selling them for money. This happens recklessly and the population of these animals go down in a constant rate leading to their extinction.

Tokay Geckos are researched on to find an HIV cure. While Top scientists say that it is in vain. Many have taken this research as a hope to find a cure...some for the welfare...and some for the money. The greed to earn money is leading to the extinction of beautiful animals. Think about it. If Human beings have fundamental rights, should the animals also not have some basic rights? At Least the right to LIVE? Tiger was first hunted as a game, gradually the GOVT. took steps. Later, they were researched on. GOVT. scientist said that tiger doesn't contain any medicinal factors and research on them was banned but is the tiger safe today? Nope. People who believe that tiger can be used to cure cancer are still researching on them by illegal means. Poachers are still prevalent. Tiger reserves are proving to be useless. The count of tiger in the whole world is >3200!!

In such situations, should animal testing be actually allowed?
Debate Round No. 2
boom101

Pro

Firstly, I thank Con, for your rebuttal, and will proceed with my own.

Well, you have stated that while the food industry uses an insignificant amount of animals, it does have a breeding program, for example, farms, albeit, it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. They have stated this quote, "We breed animals for four principal reasons: as sources of usable products or services; for medical or scientific research; for aesthetic, cultural or ethical consideration; and as pets", proving my point of how a small amount of animals, used for medical purposes, also enables us to advance our drugs, has a breeding program, and comparing this to the food industry who, in fact, kill more than 55 billion animals per year, according to 'The Vegan Society of Peace', and yet only do this to satisfy their taste unlike finding cures for cancer, and saving millions of lives, shows that animal testing is a great thing. This proves how animal testing is far more beneficial than all of the other industries that use animals, and how despite using a small amount of animals, as mentioned before, they advance us, as humans, so much more than all the others. Do you really want to stop animal testing?

Also, I believe you have failed to comprehend my other point, (as you proved by saying, "and nothing will happen to the population of the animals?") which elaborates on, the fact, that, if we stop animal testing, the human race could possibly wipe out; and if the human race is wiped out, the food web/chain, would be out of control, distorted, which would then allow some species to die out, eventually dying out all living creatures. Animal testing would save millions of human lives, thus continuing the human race. By all means, animals are vital for our living. I do believe that animals are affected by the activities of humans. But it is unfortunate that you are slow to realise that as a result we, as humans, have a duty of care for all living things, and animal testing is essential for animals and humans to not become extinct.

Also, animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or death. Some tests are even as simple as seeing different wet animals shake themselves. (1) Besides, even if all testing animals died, it must be considered how this is done for the benefit of us staying alive, which as mentioned before, is a must for animals to live. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Under these circumstances, would you want animals to be stopped from testing?

Millions of human lives depend on bettering our medication, would you rather see millions of humans dying, or 20 rats in a laboratory? Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. It must be understood that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it does, and will continue to save lives.

Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. Animal testing is the least of the reasons, albeit, the diversity of the tiger count in the whole world, is quite touching, and depressing. Anyhow, even if animal testing is stopped, people will still do this illegally, for the sake of money, albeit, animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals, the intention for animal testing is to benefit and advance our drugs, and not to end the animal races.

Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives, and there aren't any satisfactory alternatives because animals are the closest things related to humans, and for accurate medicine results, that won't kill or harm humans, we need to test our products on other creatures, which enables us to verify if the results are positive and actually work right in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems.

In conclusion, animal testing is extremely beneficial for both humans and animals, if we continue animal testing, we will find new cures, and save millions of lives. Animal testing is to advance drugs, population control, and morality.

(1) http://www.bbc.com....

Thank you. :)
rajun

Con

Thank you, pro, for your rebuttal and arguments.

" it is unfortunate that you have not considered the fact of breeding programs also occurring in animal testing, as proved in the 'Royal Society Publishing', written by highly qualified scientists and professors. "

It is true that there are breeding programs also occurring in animal testing but is it that all the animal testing that is occurring in this world contains animal breeding programs? and is it that all the species of animals that are being tested on have led to successful results? Rats are given infected blood to see what effect it takes on them. Is it fair?(a) Is it that the Tokay gecko is bred in all the animal testing labs? Then why is there such a high demand for it? Why is it that the 'tokay" call that I used to hear every evening near my home has now ceased?(b)

(a)http://t0.gstatic.com...
(b)http://upload.wikimedia.org...

"Also, animals that go through animal testing are not going through pain and suffering or death."

Animal testing brutality is an endless list.(c) Animals endure chemicals being dripped into their eyes, injected into their bodies, forced up their nostrils or forced down their throats. They are addicted to drugs, forced to inhale/ingest toxic substances, subjected to maternal deprivation, deafened, blinded, burned, stapled, and infected with disease viruses. These treatments are exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, and worse yet, undercover investigations have exposed violations of animal welfare policies and cases of extreme negligence at labs and universities. That is the point. Negligence. It is like who cares for a few animals? Animal testing labs that are supposed to be safe,clean,anti-cruel etc...have turned out to be cruelty labs where even if not desired, animals are killed because of negligence.

(c)http://www.downtoearth.org...

"Also, in regard to your count of tigers in the whole world, the major reason for the small population of tigers, is hunting tigers for their skin, teeth and other features. animal testing is not the reason for close extinction heading towards animals"

Tigers for their skin, teeth and other features? Skin is nowhere to be found now,Pro. The bones are used. The bones for medicinal uses. Now, how did this theory come into being that tiger bones are medicinal? As I mentioned before, this is something that happens when animal testing is done but then stopped but people carry it on illegally. Tiger is just an example of what animal testing leads to. It inspires other individuals to carry these tests themselves for money. Animal testing is not the reason for close extinction of animals? How can one guarantee that when examples of tokay gecko and Giggles are prevalent? Animal testing leads to the high demand of animals. illegal poaching and large scale hunting of such animals occur because of money. Leading to extinction of such animals. How can we say that animal testing is perfectly safe and O.K in such a case?

"Also, it is considered that there are alternatives than using animals for testing drugs, but if this is the truth, then why aren't any alternatives used? Why are animals considered the first option? The truth is that there are no alternatives"

And from which reliable resource does such an argument come from? Of-course there are alternatives to animal testing. animals are also not the closests sample of humans. (e) Cell culture, human tissue use, Vitro modular immune. many of these are in use but this of-course are costlier than animal testing but they are used in respectable labs but as I said, not only respectable labs do these test and prefer animals for the cheapness. Animal testing is never helpful in population control. It is leading to extinction.

(e)http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion....

I agree that animal testing is having benefits but why helpless animals should suffer when there are alternatives? Animal testing should be made illegal and banned and only alternatives should be used so that only respectable and safe labs funded by the government can carry these tests. This will not only ensure the welfare of animals and also help us find cures and save lives.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by boom101 4 years ago
boom101
you too!!!
Posted by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
and same here..rebuttal is always a tendency...haha. Good luck
Posted by boom101 4 years ago
boom101
I'd still love to rebut against all of arguments...
Posted by boom101 4 years ago
boom101
By the way, I'm a girl... not a man, as so you have referred...

Anyhow, the views are increasing...yeah-y!
Posted by boom101 4 years ago
boom101
Regards your comment with the tiger count.... okay, I was going to point that out, but you did that yourself.

Also, ya... I wanted to see what would happen... hopefully we're all here...
Posted by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
Man, Pro!!!! you made the voting period so long!!! This will be interesting.
Posted by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
And by that I meant <3200. I am apologise for not realising it earlier.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
boom101rajunTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fully understand the concept of animal testing, and many of his arguments contained many flaws. For example, millions of rats would be killed to save 20 people is a better estimate than vise versa. Con did not point out these flaws very much, though. Con, however, did make arguments that made at least some sense. Con did have some spelling mistakes, though. But Con, to back it all up, he used links to support his facts and ideas. So this debate goes to con in one of the easier decisions that a voter can make. Step it up, Pro! Good job, Con!
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
boom101rajunTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Man, at some times boom101 made about as much sense as Bill Clinton when he has been drunk and smoking a bag of weed. Let's get down to business. Conduct: Tied S&P goes to Pro because Con had some spelling errors. Arguments go to Con because... well... he made no sense. He made outrageous statements at times with no... I repeat... no sources to back them up. The un-outrageous statements had sources, but Con used them first, and used more. Overall, this goes to Con.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
boom101rajunTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm..Not able to tell who won, but it is obvious that Con had more sources.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
boom101rajunTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had BOP. Pro's first argument was particularly weak, effectively rebutted by con, and I didn't even see why animals slaughtered for food had to be accepted as a premise. Con could have more easily rebutted the point with the one sentence of "I support veganism." Pro's second point, however, proved to be reasonably strong. I wasn't convinced that all humans would die, but some cures might not be found. Con's rebuttal focused more on specific animals currently tested on that are endangered. He kind of also destroyed his own model by showing how ineffective his own model can be (ie with tiger poaching). I didn't think such restrictions were exclusive to his material. I was convinced by con that current approaches lacked standards and oversight. What con had to justify, though, was why these deficiencies warranted a ban. Pro could have agreed more ethics, care and oversight is needed and incorporated that into their model. I felt pro's rebuttal to this was brief but sufficient. 3:2 aff