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

Animal Testing.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 34561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that animal testing should continue because if we don't have animals to test on, who can we test on to find new stuff that could be beneficial for the growth in society? Whether you like it or not, it's one of the only ways we can find new types of cures and we could even find cures to many diseases. I agree that sometimes there is a minority of the time where animal testing is used for stuff like makeup, that way I do agree that it shouldn't be used, but if it is used to find new cures and something new that can be beneficial it would be great for our society, and we wouldn't even notice.


I agree to debate animal testing with you.
I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible.
I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.
Debate Round No. 1


Without animal testing most medical drugs/cancer treatments wouldn't have been developed as fast/at all. The animals tested on have never seen the wild, they are bred and reared for one purpose, testing.

I believe these are NOT right:

1) Make-up tests
2)When weapon manufacturers use their firearms to try out on live pigs/animals.
3) Shampoo and miscellaneous stuff that wouldn't even benefit society.

That's it really. I believe that it is completely morally right when it could save a patient of a deadly disease, for eg:

"Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals."

reading that you must agree that it's mostly right, I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing.


I would like to begin my argument by pointing out that you agree with me that animal testing is wrong in many cases. You stated it was wrong to experiment on animals for developing make-up, weapons, and shampoo.
I would like to try to convince you that it is also wrong in developing medicines for people.

I am not going to argue your point; "I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing."
I can't change what has happened in the past, and there is no reason to argue about something that cannot be changed. I am not going to argue that animal testing in the earlier days of medical development didn't benefit mankind.

What I will argue is that it is no longer justified to do animal testing.
During the time scientist and researchers were finding cures and treatments for many diseases; they were also finding more advanced ways of developing these drugs.

With advanced laboratory equipment such as the Cobas 4800 system, the ABL800 Flex, and perhaps most significantly the Rapid Fire 300 mass spectrometer; it could be possible to develop new drugs without using animal experimentation.

"As demands for safe and efficacious pharmaceutical drugs grow, technological solutions will be of increasing interest that reduce barriers to clinical success rather than simply shifting bottlenecks and necessitating new compromises in the discovery and development process. Critical are those solutions providing better target selection and validation from improved information on disease pathophysiology; more predictive and biologically-relevant high throughput assays; and acquisition of ADME/Tox earlier in the discovery process with the goal of identifying and rejecting earlier in the process those chemical structures having poor safety profiles. Miniaturised, quantitative assays implemented in high throughput hold the promise to impact these important areas of need. Nanofluidic quantitative PCR moves the superior analytical properties of the PCR assay into high throughput screening by enabling the capability of quantitatively measuring gene expression in multiple genes in multiple specimens simultaneously with the potential of providing better quality information by biologically validating a target's role in disease pathophysiology. The dual concepts of miniaturisation and quantification is further extended to screening functions in the discovery and development process where the goal is to generate safe and efficacious compounds for subsequent testing in humans. Introduction of high throughput mass spectrometry methods in the initial screening phase and following in vitro ADME/Tox testing phase allows testing of putative drug compounds with assays of greater biological relevance to the disease pathology combined with information on compound safety earlier in development. Better quality data from identifying biologically effective compounds based on application of these new technologies will ultimately impact the odds of clinical success; jump-starting a new era in drug discovery that will allow the industry to realise the gains promised by more than a decade of rapid technological progress."

The key sentence in the above paragraph is;
"The dual concepts of miniaturisation and quantification is further extended to screening functions in the discovery and development process where the goal is to generate safe and efficacious compounds for subsequent testing in humans."

With the scientific research equipment that is available today it is no longer justified to give thousands of animals slightly different versions of a new drug, just to see which ones die and how long it takes them to die.

In addition to the advanced laboratory equipment already in existence; nanotechnology is making progress to advance science.

"Nanoparticle research, has the capacity to profoundly affect mankind"s future. By carefully researching nanoparticle elements into their smallest components and then engineering these particles to achieve different functions, researchers can dramatically enhance everything from delicate electronics to life-saving medical techniques."

If you take the time to understand how incredibly advanced scientific technology is today; it is plain to see that animal testing is, to put it judiciously, 'outdated'.

Therefore it is not necessary to use animal testing.
Debate Round No. 2


karolis forfeited this round.


Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LetiziaPallara 5 years ago
Unethical for using animals in an innatural and cruel way, I think animal testing is very dangerous for humans. With animal testing the pharmaceutical factory can ask more public money saying that they have to pay for the animals they have (animal experimentation is expensive!). And using animals the researchers can select the species of animals on the basis of the results they want obtain. Ex. some animals die with diossine, other don't. And when their drugs on the market will begin to kill people or to cause horrible diseases and reactions, the researchers will say that with animals the result was different, so it's not their fault. They want be paid! They don't care about human or animal welfare, rights etc. They are horrible people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.