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

Animal Testing should continue for medical research

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,189 times Debate No: 27790
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I support animal testing and would like to debate this with someone. This is medical testing ONLY, not cosmetics.

Round 1 is acceptance only
Round 2-4 are arguments

Rules: No Trolling
No plagarism
Insert other rules here

Thanks, and have a nice day.


Alright. I'd like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate, as it is a very controversial topic.

Have at you, my good sir!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research.)

Argument 1:

Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer.

Argument 2:

All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research.

Argument 3:

Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing.

I await my opponent’s response





Firstly, I will refute my opponent's points, and then advocate my one and only contention to this topic.

"Not any more cruel"

This point does nothing to address why animal testing SHOULD continue for medical research--it merely states how animal testing is not worse than the wild. This is a textbook example of Ignoratio elenchi--presenting an argument that may or may not be logically or functionally valid, but that fails to address the issue in question. This logical fallacy must therefore be discarded, or my opponent must prove how it relates directly to the resolution, and how it isn't just a poorly-disguised attempt at pre-emptively refuting my possible arguments.

"All drugs have to go through animal testing"

This is more of a superficial comment, but I challenge my opponent to cite what information, exactly, is sourced directly from his citations below. This would expedite a reasoned discourse. Furthermore, all of these "drugs" that my opponent claims have gone through animal testing can just as easily go through cell culture testing, as I will address in greater detail below.

"Alternatives are not reliable"

Ah. Now this argument promises to be the major point of clash in this debate, as my sole contention is as follows:
"Animal testing can be substituted for cell cultures or other alternative methods."

My opponent claims that, because "most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks", then to use cell cultures as a testing method will somehow incur erroneous or insufficient results. However, it is important to note exactly the testing systems that laboratories and pharmaceutical companies use to ensure drug safety.

A study by Bjorn Ekwal, "Screening of toxic compounds in tissue culture," where "comparisons of in vitro cytotoxicity with in vivo toxicity of 85 randomly selected drugs indicated that for most drugs a systemic lethal action was brought about by cytotoxicity. A screening model is advocated by which results of cytotoxicity tests are compared with systemic toxicity in vivo to evaluate the systemic cytotoxicity of chemicals [1]." What does this mean? For most drugs, their potentially lethal effects are brought about by damage to cellular systems. The study says it all: "A screening model is advocated by which results of cytotoxicity tests. . .
systemic toxicity."

Thus, testing drugs' effects on cells themselves is actually one of the most important parts of any pharmaceutical testing battery, contrary to what my opponent suggested.

Furthermore, these cell cultures are cultured "in vitro"--in a laboratory environment that is carefully manipulated to remove "interference by nervous and humoral factors present in the intact organism [2]." This means that they are actually more accurate than testing the entire animal, as extraneous (or "nervous or humoral") factors may be excluded from the pharmaceutical testing battery with greater accuracy.

Now, a careful reader might note that all of these sources cite using cultured cells derived from tissue samples from animals, and my opponent may attempt to argue that these samples are, in fact animals, but that is just the status quo. These cells could come pretty much from anywhere.

Moreover, "animal cell culture[s are] used to study the effects of new drugs, cosmetics and chemicals on survival and growth of a number of types of cells. Especially liver and kidney cells. Cultured animal cells are also used to determine the maximum permissible dosage of new drugs [3]." This quotation succinctly sums up my entire argument--animal cell cultures are far more efficacious than testing "animals," which my opponent implied to mean "the entire animal" when he attempted to refute my argument pre-emptively.

What is the clash? Why does it matter?

My opponent's entire argument was alarmingly devoid of thorough citations, as well as truly scientific research. Thus, any evidence I can provide to the contrary immediately renders my opponent's points irrelevant--they aren't supported enough to even really consider "points."

Let me quote: "Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing."
Where is the citation? Furthermore, to quote my opponent's only linked source, "Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. [4]"

Now, while I'm not focusing on the problems inherent within animal testing, this point is worth noting. To focus on the problems inherent to animal testing would provide an interesting debate, but I'll focus primarily on the benefits of my counterplan.

Moreover, I have provided scientific studies that show cell testing is far more important than testing an entire animal, and thus cell testing is superior to animal testing.

Finally, all of these research sources I have provided are in consensus--cell testing is better than entire animal testing.

I await my opponent's rebuttal, and I challenge my opponent to provide clearer citations at the risk of unintentional plagairism.

Debate Round No. 2


Nidhogg forfeited this round.


Interesting. I was expecting my opponent to refute this, but it's more than likely some personal issue kept Nidhogg from posting his argument. Very well, I may as well capitalize on the opening my opponent has left me, as well as possibly extending my contentions.

To reiterate responses to my opponent's points:

To "Argument 1"--
My opponent is not actually advancing his case, he is merely pre-emptively trying to counter one of my potential arguments. Even if his point is true, it has absolutely no bearing on his case. Merely because animals in labs "suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer" doesn't mean that we should subject them to testing. Now, if my opponent were to clarify his argument as 'animal testing is less cruel than the wild,' then he would actually be making a relevant argument, and I would respond to it summarily. In the absence of that, this is nothing more than a point made in the fallacy of relevance--ignoratio elenchi.

To "Argument 2"--
Again, this argument fails to address the resolution in that it is not advancing the Proposition's case. All it is doing is stating that all drugs intended to help animals have to go through some kind of testing--not necessarily animal testing, as my R2 statements have shown. I'd ask my opponent to keep his arguments on-topic, but that would narrow him down to merely refuting MY contention (as his "Argument 3" is in direct contradiction to my main contention), so I'm fine if he brings up one or more new arguments in our last round. Of course, that would make it nigh-impossible to prove the resolution, but as of yet, he's done nothing to dispute my contention (even forfeiting a round).

Furthermore, my opponent does not prove the causality--that animal testing is inherently more efficacious than other kinds of testing to determine systemic toxicity or cytotoxicity. Now, I understand that I am severely weakening my case when I mention this, but sources do exist to suggest that a systemic approach is a prerequisite to cytotoxicity testing. However, let me note that these studies merely state that a similar chemical treatment had to have gone through systemic testing, and while this narrows the field of effective experimentation, it proves it nonetheless.

I hope my opponent responds this round, as I am eager to have this become not a one-sided debate.

To "Argument 3"--
Let me refute this with my R2 research. I can provide more if necessary, but as my opponent has not made any attempt to refute my points, I do not wish to potentially weaken my side further at this point. Anyways, I have already proved that cytotoxicity testing (cell testing) is superior to animal testing, and that adequately refutes my opponent's contention while advancing my own case.

This, therefore, means that the major issue in this debate will be whether or not my opponent deigns to contend this point. If not, then I have adequately fulfilled my burden of proof by providing a reasonable, efficacious, and superior alternative to animal testing. If so, then I entreat him to do so, but I shall respond in due force.

Now, to finally extend a little logic on behalf of my orphan contention in the issue of animal testing's efficacy in general, not as compared to cytotoxicity testing.

In R2, I stated that my opponent's own source (and only linked one, at that) provides the statement: "Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. [4]"

". . .an enormous amount of money. . ." In the absence of my opponent proving that animal testing is inherently better than non-animal testing, this directly contends my opponent's argument that alternatives cost a lot of money. Unless, of course, my opponent wishes to suggest that these alternatives cost more, in which case I demand to see the evidence. This shifts the entire "cost" argument over to Con's side until--and not before--my opponent proves otherwise.

What does all of this mean? First and foremost, my opponent has utterly failed (so far) to provide a solid, relevant, and evidenced contention in support of animal testing. While I'm not arguing that the ENTIRE burden of proof lies on my opponent--it doesn't--I am arguing that my opponent has the obligation to provide at least one evidenced, relevant, solid, and substantial contention in support of animal testing. Nidhogg has not done that.

Secondly, my opponent has not made any refutation towards my arguments, and until he disproves them, they stand. Now, Nidhogg did forfeit his round, potentially due to personal disturbance, and I'm willing to let this go, but I'd like Nidhogg's R4 argument to at least refute my points, advance his own, and cite substantive (and clear) evidence.

All of this should lead the audience, at this moment, to a single conclusion. There is no way that Nidhogg can fairly win this debate, not at the rate he is going. Thus, Nidhogg needs to prove to the audience that he has won this debate, on top of the points I have presented so far. This may seem like a cheap attempt to get him to prove something unnecessary, but after all, the point of this debate is to win, right? Therefore I either entreat Nidhogg to prove why he has won (if he has) or to extend his arguments irrefutably, or some combination of both.


I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry about missing Round #3, I've been busy preparing for the holidays and school. I concede this debate and apologize that I could not finish it.



It's fine. Perhaps we should debate this further at some other date. It was fun debating with you, Nidhogg, even for the short time it lasted.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Evan_H 8 months ago
Yall take this to serious and would you like test to be done on people. If so you are the test subject.
Posted by Nidhogg 5 years ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
Posted by IX 5 years ago
He stated "should continue," which implies the status quo. Unless he changed it to accomodate your comment, @Zaradi.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Do you defend animal testing under the status quo or the concept of animal testing? The former is debatable, the latter isn't.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and concession. plus stronger case.
Vote Placed by Chicken 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession