The Instigator
Carson_Goetz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jdwest9817
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Animal Testing.

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 3 votes the winner is...
jdwest9817
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 102214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Carson_Goetz

Pro

New medicines require testing because researchers must measure both the beneficial and the harmful effects of a compound on a whole organism. A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials in humans can take place.

The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials.

Testing on animals aso serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly.
jdwest9817

Con

I'm arguing against animal testing because I believe it is totally unnecessary. For one, animals usually are killed after the initial test or live injured for the rest of their lives. Secondly, many tests performed on animals are for materials that never sees approval or public consumption and use. Thirdly, animal testing costs a lot of money. Considering the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with the drug or similar experimental substance, longevity of testing, and the price of animals themselves. Finally, the reaction to the drug/experimental substance in an animal's body is different from the reaction in a human's. Mainly because animals would be in an unnatural environment, they would be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to the potential reaction in a natural environment.
Debate Round No. 1
Carson_Goetz

Pro

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test.
jdwest9817

Con

The same effects of testing can be used on infected blood (Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine), infected muscle, and if it's just a simple thing like vitamins and stuff like that, humans can test it
Debate Round No. 2
Carson_Goetz

Pro

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test.
http://www.peta.org...
jdwest9817

Con

First off, you just used the exact same argument in round 2 as your closing argument so that means you're super cocky, or you've already lost. Secondly, what is being done to animals is the same as if someone keeps a human in a too small cage, feed him/her minimal food, straps them to a bed, use straps to force your mouth open wide, to test animal medicine, that you don't know will ever be used by the public, and then kill you, or let you live injured after testing it. It's cruel, inhumane, and should be fined if not worthy of jail time.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Amending vote to not include source point.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Pro makes the case in R1 that animal testng has benefitted scientific research for years and is the reason that we have so many helpful medicines. He claims that full organisms are needed to see what the full-bosy effects of certain dosages are. He also claims that human testing and risk is reduced because animals are rused instead. Con then argues that animal testing is unnecessary becuase it is expensive, animals are killed/injured as a result from these tests, and that many products that are tested never get released any way. IN R2, Pro reiterates his stance, but concedes one of Con's main arguments adn does nothing to dismantle the rest of Con's points. Con asserts that other methods of testing are much better and humane, but does nothing to refute any of Pro's R2 argument. In R3, Pro C/Ps his argument and then provides a source (thus the source point), and does nothing to refute Con's R2. Con points this out, and then continues to compare animal testing to human testing, and states why it is inhumane, saying how attrocious it would be if the same things were to happen to humans. Therefore, due to Pro's failure to address Con's points and make new arguments, and due to Con's ability to not only make new arguments but address Pro's points, the args. point goes to Con.
Posted by Jammie 1 year ago
Jammie
I support Pro, but animals should not be used for cosmetic products, as they don't benefit humanity. If you want to test if your shampoo is painful in the eyes, put it in our own eyes!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Carson_Goetzjdwest9817Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Coveny 1 year ago
Coveny
Carson_Goetzjdwest9817Tied
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: I consider it bad form to copy and paste a previous round, so I'm docking Pro. Neither side really addressed the other side's points, or proved their own points but Con lists four points(Not needed/alternatives, Data not used, cost, different than humans) while Pro only lists one (required for new medicine) so I'm giving Con the point. Only one source was given and it's very bias, no points.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Carson_Goetzjdwest9817Tied
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: Pro's arguments are mainly that testing on animals means we get medicine. Then Pro concedes that millions of species can die by failed tests. Con refutes this by saying we could just test on infected blood. In Round 3, Pro just copy/pastes his Round 2 (seriously?), and Con calls him out on it, though a bit cruelly. Con then uses the classic "what if we were the animals" anti-animal testers appeal to emotion. Seeing as how Con suggests we test the medicines on the infection itself instead of an infected animal (which testing on the animal could result in death of many), I'm voting Con. Con wasn't disrespectful enough to lose conduct points, thankfully.