The Instigator
Yunior4life
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Animal Testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,605 times Debate No: 25130
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Yunior4life

Con

In today's society, science advancements make the world go round, that's a great thing. Unfortunenatly, with this great power, comes great responsibilty. Humans are animals! Just like a dog, a bunny, a horse, we all have animal cells, we all breath, we all feel pain. If science is "so" advance, why are we resorting to hurting other creatures for the purspose of research?
TUF

Pro


I am going to try and make this short, simple, and to the point.

****MY CASE****

C1:In a philosophical Utilitarian rule, Animal testing is inherently good.

Animal testing to some, may seem detrimental. But I ask those who feel this way to consider the alternatives to animal testing. Most of the major diseases, sicknesses, and treatments we have today, are possible because of animal testing. We learn, and continue to learn new things every day by the testing of medical by-products, that helps further the medical interests and endeavors required when pursuing world renown care in health purposes.

Utilitarianism, is possibly one of the biggest ideas that comes to mind when considering the prospect however. When we test on animals, how much good are we doing in comparison to bad? My opponent has offered no clarification to supposed harms that animal testing brings. I must ask the same. Overall, how can you sustain that animal testing is harmful?

What harms does this do? Animal testing is done as a lost resort, when the medicine has been scientifically altered to the point where it should not fail by all means. However there is a certain amount of risk involved in the procedure none the less. Why not test it on an animal?

Another question my opponent must answer, is how testing on other humans brings more good than testing on animals?

Do animal trials really tell us about humans?

Animals are surrogates for humans. The basic reason for animal trials is to determine two issues before any new compound is introduced into a human: safety and efficacy, whether a compound is safe for human ingestion and also whether or not a product works for its intended purpose. Really that process begins way before we get to animals. But at some point in the process it is critical to understand how a compound, let's say, a hypertension medication, works in a whole living system. You can't just determine how it works on blood pressure or the heart. You need to know how it would affect all the organs. That really is the whole purpose of using a complex biological system known as an animal.

http://www.time.com...


The point of this entire argument, is that over all, animal testing does more good than harm.


C2: Animal testing benefits animals.

The thing that most people don't consider when thinking about animal testing, is that we are actually helping out animals as well with testing. Veterinarians, zoo keepers, pet owners, all with sick or injured pets, rely in some way on medicines to help animals. The tests are usually run on scientific bread rats, an over populated species that most people nary consider anything more than a pest. If you would kill a rat for sneaking into your home, or for crawling around in the sewers, why would it not be preferable to cause some good before ending that rodents life? Animals used for testing purpose cause an inherent good for their own species as well.

http://www.fda.gov...

C3: Humans take a higher priority in speceism.

Humans take a higher priority, because we need to benefit our own kind over that of another species. We can replenish that of the species we are harming, and do enough good to counter act the harm of possibly killing a rat. The harms of not using animal testing, are simply too great not to consider the uses of them. But in the end, humans need to take care of humans. Hypothetical situation: If a family member close to you bore some deadly illness or dis-ease, and an un-tested cure was made, would you want it to be tested right into humans? What if this cure, worsened the state of your loved one, and killed them? Would you not then prefer animal testing to this fate? Unfortunately, the option is a bleak one to the minds of most humans. 30-40 years ago, an untested version of the polio vaccination was given to hundreds of people in western America. This resulted in a vast amount of law suits, after victims suffered from intellectual dis-abilities for life (My uncle was among one of these victims).

So basically because we refused to test the product on one animal, we risked the lives of hundreds of human beings living in torment. Again, inherent good.

http://nichcy.org...

I conclude.


****CONCLUSION****

Animal testing seems like a bad idea to the blind eye, but the plain and simple truth is, that the alternative to animal testing is much worse. If we do not test on animals, do we test on humans, our own brothers and sisters? Is there any more good in that than in doing a deed for man-kind? We use animal testing to further benefits to animals as well. I feel as if I have proven that over all, animal testing brings more good than harm, when weighing everything in significance. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals, and thank him for the challenge. Good day mate!
Debate Round No. 1
Yunior4life

Con

Thank you. For responding. You're really good by the way. :)

Animal Testing Harms Society:

Animal experimentation has misled researchers for centuries, confounding our understanding of the human body and the diseases that plague it. Many animals, including primates, react differently to drugs that humans, just like how some people react differently from a medication than others. My opponent gave an example to Polio. Although, there have over 50 times in history where animal testing has harmed humans. Animals and humans do not share the same DNA pattern, making animal testing unreliable. Following on that criticism is the premise that because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation. I'll give three examples out of the more than 50, since I'm only limited to 8,000 characters.

For example:
1. Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking- related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.

2. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.

3. Combined heart lung transplants were also on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.13 Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.

Again who is it benefiting? Humans, I don't think so, since people have died from animal testing, the risk outweight the benefits in society. Animals? Here comes the second argument.

Inhumanity and Animal cruelty:

My opponent says animal testing benefits other species. Yet how can this be if the rights of those animals are completely denied. Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds.

Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin.They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

Philosohy and Speciesism:

According to my opponents philosophy, humans are the superior species. If such thing is true, isn't it our moral duty to protect the weak and innocent. Surely, as the "dominant" species, humans have the power to make sure we don't hurt a less fortunate species, instead of nuturing the innocent creatures that grace the earth, we are just using them for selfish and greedy purposes. This can't be justifyable. As the famous quote says "With great power, comes great responsibility". With the great power humans have, we have to take responsibility and not harm others for our misfortune of disease.

Cost:

Currently, in America, we are experiencing the worst ecomonic collapse, since The Great Depression. Anything wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is costly and unnecessary. 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. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. The federal government and many�health charities�waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually�relevant to humans.

Alternatives:
My opponent makes a good statement. Yes, at one point in human history, it was blacks and orphans who suffered for science. Today, animals are suffering for science. All of this suffering is pretty useless since there are many more humane, non-animal, reliable alternatives.

For example:
1. Cloning of human organs and stem cell research are more cost effective, more reliable, and less cruel. No human or animal is hurt in this process.

2. Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc.

3. Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals.

4. Antibodies—which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice—can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells.

Of course these are just a few alternatives of the hundreds there are.

Sources: Aboutanimaltesting.com
PETA.org
Healingcancernaturally.com

Thank you. :)
TUF

Pro

I thank my opponent for being cordial and for the compliment, and will now offer my rebuttals.

****REBUTTALS****

'Animals and humans do not share the same DNA pattern, making animal testing unreliable.'

This is actually untrue. Gorillas and Chimpanzee's largely represent the human DNA system, bearing a remarkable 99.9% likeability's to humans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://wiki.answers.com...

However, other animals, have similar DNA tracts to humans as well Such as chickens and pigs.

http://www.genome.gov...

Pigs actually share 98% of the human genes as well.

http://www.abc.net.au...

These are just some fun facts to throw around. The main point however, that would like to accomplish, is that it doesn't matter how much resemblance to the human DNA animals resemble, as long as the specific tested gene article resembles that of a human.

If the animal in question can carry the same virus's, wounds, and other discrepancies as a human can, then it should be able to be implemented on a human bio as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Again who is it benefiting? Humans, I don't think so, since people have died from animal testing, the risk outweigh the benefits in society."

However, no where in your three examples points, do you prove to how the harm is more significant than the goods. Also, I am not so sure if heart transplants is exactly what we should be taking about here when referring to animals testing. The main goal Animal Testing attributes to is the factor of natural borne diseases that can be possessed by humans. Cancer brought by smoking, and other man made things, is irreparable in comparison to what we are trying to debate here.

"Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds."

You are quoting PETA, word for word in this sentence.

http://www.peta.org...

The fact is, PETA seem to be mis-representing a lot of facts, as such to implore a sense of emotional conflict between their naive listeners.

I could re-phrase that sentence, to make it sound differently:
Right now, there a billions of humans suffering from diseases, whose cures have not been found. Without the help of animal testing, these humans could die within days.

The simple fact, is that such statements are mis-leading, and manipulative.

To prove a point, I will be quoting from the animal testing site, referencing the actualities of how animals are treated, how many are used, and what their living conditions are.

In laboratories, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box. Wood chips or something similar covers the cage bottoms. Cage tops are covered by a wire lid with food and water hanging down for the animals to reach. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Social primates like monkeys often live with other monkeys, but most other large animals usually live alone. Often, primates get to spend some time every day in a larger cage where they can play.
More than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA that are used in research do not feel pain from the experiments. There is no way of knowing how many rats and mice do not feel pain in research.

Most of these animals were given something that either helped take the pain away or helped them get over the pain quickly. For example, most of the animals that underwent surgery were given anesthesia first so they would be "asleep" during the surgery.

Since my opponent is keen on quoting PETA, I think it would be suitable for him to find a source to validity his argument, such that is isn't biased, and contrived.

http://www.aspca.org...

"Surely, as the "dominant" species, humans have the power to make sure we don't hurt a less fortunate species, instead of nurturing the innocent creatures that grace the earth, we are just using them for selfish and greedy purposes."

Why not take care of our own race above another race? Tell me, if you were approached by a hungry lion, do you think it would not pounce on you, simply because it's instinct is to survive? Us humans work similarly. If we can do something to benefit man kind that will ease the pain of thousands, then it is more than justifiable to hold our lives above that of another species. We live among animals every day, and love and care for animals. While we do this, we still have a sense of superiority, of use over them. We are rational, thinking beings, who can create. Animals exist in our universe, and many have sufficed as food, clothing, and company over the course of hundreds of years. Animal testing is no different than any other thing that animals are used for. Animals are tools, for human kind. Is there anything specifically wrong with this in contrast to the benefits? That, though, is subjective.

"Anything wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is costly and unnecessary"

Is everything costly unnecessary? I think not. Your entire point here is contrived on a made up belief that we are not benefiting from Animal testing, and research.

So I will show some of examples of how animal testing has helped.

1. Curing cancer.

Over the past 40 years, cancer researching efforts have doubled, and to a huge avail. More people are surviving the deadly infection than ever before, thanks to the benefits of animal testing.

New cancer drugs account for 50-60 percent of the gains we have made in cancer survival rates since 1975. Overall, these medicines have contributed a remarkable 10.7% of the increase in life expectancy at birth in the United States.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...

2. HIV/AIDS.

Thanks to animal testing, the death rate from AIDS, has dropped more than 70%.

3. Heart disease/Stroke.

Statins were introduced based on inhibits from animal testing. Millions of people take this pill every day to prevent high cholesterol which leads to heart disease and strokes.

The list goes on and on. Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Hepatitis C, Birth Defects, bio terrorism, Epilepsy, spinal injuries, cystic fibrosis, all have been significantly influence by Animal testing.

http://www.amprogress.org...

Animal testing saves lives. Who cares about the costs when it does so much good?

"Cloning of human organs and stem cell research are more cost effective, more reliable, and less cruel. No human or animal is hurt in this process."

Human cloning, is not yet possible. It's long been hoped for, and studied, but as of right now, this is a distant hope. Cloning experiments, also, have been on animals, with actually, not a lot of success. However, there was a successfully cloned sheep at one point. This just goes to further my point. This testing being done on animals, was a new way to develop different ways to test for diseases, so you are onto something here ;-)
(That was a sarcastic spin btw).

http://www.ama-assn.org...

HBBI (Human based brain imaging:

In my research of the subject, I was not able to find a source that defined a single case where this has been implemented, used, and proven to work, in solving the problem of any medical disease. The techinique is relatively abandoned, and more of a hopeful science project in the works.

Anti-bodies: Scientifically, this is not a proven solution. I ask that my opponent find a link to back up this statements superiority to animal testing.

****CONCLUSION****

While some people like to believe that animal testing is morally wrong, the benefits far exceed the contrary. We have learned and achieved great things already, due to the processes of animal testing. I have proven how the treatment of such animals is exagerated, and that animal treatment can actually be quite appreciative compared to other living habits. None the less, the philosophy of holding a humans life in superiority to an animals life still holds true. Specisim is justified, and the human race cannot survive by holding humans less, or equal to animals. We use animals to survive, and they do what they need to do to survive, such that we really are not different from them. Survival is the key, however, and in it, we can co-exist. In the manner of ethics, is it really so negative to use animal testing to further extend the quality of life for the human race? I would have to beg to differ.

I thank my opponent for his eager response, and look forward to the remainder of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Yunior4life

Con

My opponent made good arguments. My turn. :)

Society:

Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific. What does DNA similarity even mean? Bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans. Should we test on them? Of course not, that would lead to faulty results, just like how animal testing leads to faulty results. Humans share 100% of their DNA. Still, even with that, drugs react differently to everyone. DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness.

Animal testings does little to contribute society in the modern era. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions.

That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials.

Everytime humanity takes one step forward, animal testing takes us two steps back. Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies. The cure AIDS could've possibly already been found if it wasn't for animal testing

My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans.

50 WAYS ANIMAL TESTING HARMS HUMANITY:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com...

Inhumanity and animal cruelty:

Animal testing harms animals. It's just plain wrong. Those animal suffer, feel pain and are lonely just like people do. Life in a cage or between four walls, doesn't sound like life it sounds like prison. These animals deserve to be with their family roaming free in the wild. They suffer fron stress and anxiety just like we do. The Animal Welfare Act is poorly regulated by the government. Alot of this cruelty and pain happens in private behind closed doors, which the government has no control over.

Sure, there are many scientist who love animals and try to protect them. Though there are just as many or more, who beat and bash animals, who treat them like dummys and punching bag rather than a real life.

Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science. This is fact, not made up there is plenty evidence that shows this. Just look up "Animal Testing" any where on Youtube and you will see the cruelty these creatures face agaisnt their will.

Researchers claim that they must be allowed unfettered access to animals for experiments in order to find cures for human diseases, yet they refuse to address the serious ethical problems of torturing sentient creatures for research purposes. On top of that, over-reliance on animal experimentation has historically hindered scientific advancement and endangered human safety because results from animal research typically cannot be applied to humans. In fact, scientists could save more human lives by using humane non-animal research and testing methods that are more accurate and efficient.

Proof Animal Cruelty Exist in Laboratories:

"USDA Charges UCSF for Animal Welfare Act Violations"
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) with 89 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Instead of defending themselves in court and revealing their mistreatment of animals to public scrutiny, UCSF chose to pay a $92,500 fine, one of the largest ever levied against a research institution by the USDA.

"Coulston Foundation Forced Out of Business"
At one time, the Coulston Foundation had possession of an astonishing 650 chimpanzees almost half the population of chimpanzees used for research in the United States. Frederick Coulston was flush with millions in federal funding, as well as contracts with pharmaceutical, chemical and medical device companies, and was pursuing plans to become the sole source of chimpanzees for research in the country. They later closed, humiliated."

These are just a few examples that cruelty exist no matter what regulations.

Philosophy:

Quoting one of the greatest peace maker in history.

Animal life is equivalent in value to human life. Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man."

My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive. We survived thousands of year without animal testing. Animals don't exist to serve humans. In cosmetics, do we need more mascara? Did caveman use hairspray? Don't we have enough eyeliner? In medicine, it's not helping it's hurting us.

Hurting an animal for experiments is like hurting a pet, which people would not do. People would never want their own pets tested; why other animals? People that have pets typically develop an affection and even love for their pets, and often believe that their pets return that love and affection. They generally believe that animals have feelings, express happiness, and feel pain and suffering at times. Most would never allow their own pets to be subjected to testing for most of the above reasons. Why then would they believe it acceptable to subject other animals to such testing; animals that have the same capacity for the above feelings?

Cost:
My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society.

Alternatives:
Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research!

Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community.

Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals?

Antibiodies (Request)
http://m.phys.org...

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

http://www.vivisectioninfo.org...

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...

Thank you. :)
TUF

Pro

****REBUTTALS****

"Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific."

This is completely false. You have no proof to sustain the belief that animal testing is innefective. In my last argument I proved how animal testing has helped overcome and cure many dis-eases, and unlike you, backed the claim up with evidence.

"DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness."

It has everything to do with effectiveness. I have proven this. Your point false because it lacks the evidence to support this emotion riddled statement.

"In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research."

First off the article which you are referring to is based on human modification to animals. The entire article is emotion based. This attack fails to work, becuase you forget that animal testing results in saving hundreds of HUMAN lives. Let's take a look at the article. It says that 80 animals died in the process of animal testing, for the aids cure. What the article leaves out, is that the cures have worked on humans. This is where the validity of the speceism argument works out. If the lives of 80 animals are spent, such that the lives of 1,000,000 humans are saved, is it not beneficial then to use animal testing?

This is the article we are referring to btw: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

"My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans."

This is just ridiculous. First you cannot make an argument without copying and pasting everything from a link that weas so obviously googled, and found on the first page. Second, you fail to read my arguments. I have provided a list of all the ways that animal testing has benefitted human kind, in that it cures diseases, and save millions of human lives.

http://www.amprogress.org...

Want more sources?

Here you go.

http://www.amprogress.org...
http://www.ca-biomed.org...;
http://www.nih.gov...
http://www.pharma.org...;
http://www.heart.org...
http://www.cancer.org...;
http://www.liverfoundation.org...
http://www.findacure.org...;
http://www.jdrf.org...
http://www.marchofdimes.com...;
http://my.clevelandclinic.org...
http://www.pedaids.org...
http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org...
https://www.michaeljfox.org...
http://www.stjude.org...

Every single site I just listed, are proven medical centers that have been benefitted from the research animal testing has done. Their are hundreds and hundreds more of them. So some animals die, but for what cause? You almost make it sound as if we are strapping then down on tables and brutally torturing them for sheer pleasure. Naive animal rights activists blindly following PETA's lies, compleetely astound me.


"My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive."

Wrong. We do. Hundreds of thousands of people die from cancer, HIV, Aids, strokes, etc everyday. Animal testing has put a significant decrease to these trends. Not all animals die from animal testing, in fact in my previous arguments, I show exactly how good their living conditions actually are. You completely missed this, and instead just continued to copy and paste from your tree hugging PETA sources.

"My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society."

WTF?!?!?!?!?! You cannot be serious. You haven't provided counter arguments to more than half of everything I have said! In fact you completely ignore 50% of my arguments and sources, yet you have the gall to call me out on not making an argument that I did in fact make? Un-Be-Lie-Vable.

PROVE TO ME HOW IT IS WASTEFUL IF IT SAVES HUMAN LIVES.

Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research!

Proof, or GTFO.

Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community.

I have dis-proved all your methods. False dichotomy.

Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals?

Cloning of human skin cells does nothing for scientific and medical examiners concerning the preservation of medical research for curing disease.


****CONCLUSION****

My opponent lacks sufficient evidence for more than half of his claims, and fails to refute the majority of the statistics, and evidence I have offered. My opponent has not upheld his burden of proof. All of his arguments are an emotionally unstable attack from a manipulated structure of what he thinks is argumentation. I ask that he reads over all the evidence I have provided in the first two rounds, and come at me with a better argument for the following round. Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
Yunior4life

Con

Ok my opponent seems to have gotten more aggressive last round. It's okay. To each their own.

Society:
First I would like to mention that my opponent contradicted himself.

Round 2:"The main point however, that would like to accomplish, is that it doesn't matter how much resemblance to the human DNA animals resemble, as long as the specific tested gene article resembles that of a human."

Round 3: "It [DNA] has everything to do with effectiveness. I have proven this. Your point false because it lacks the evidence to support this emotion riddled statement."

I'm getting mixed arguments from my opponent. Does DNA resemblance matter or not? Pro doesn't make it clear with his paradoxical arguments.

Animals and humans while they may have "similar" DNA the disease each species can have all different. In fact, less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals. [1]

I would also like to mention that I am not the one saying animal testing hurts humas. Most medical experts agree that data from animal tests cannot be extrapolated safely to human patients. [2]

Animal can cause birth defects. 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing. [1]

Not only do people who hurt animals abuse them. Studies show that people who abuse animals for selfish purposes don't stop there, they move on to human abuse. [3]

It is interesting to note that 83% of substances are metabolized differently by animals and humans

My opponent did not provide a list that says how animal testing does more good them harm. Rathet he just gave a bunch of links, most just take me to the front page of every website. None of those links say "Animal testing does more good than bad" or anything close to that. Some of those links didn't even work from my experience. I gave 50 ways how animal testing hurts humans. Yet the good it has done that I read is AIDS, Polio, Stroke. Beyond that my opponent failed to provide one a link that gives 50 or more ways that says animal testing does more good than harm.

Inhumanity and Animal cruelty:
My opponent says the animals tested on are kept in a humane enviorment. Yet I have not read that anywhere. I would like an article that says animals aren't mistreated.

Most of the animals that are tested are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. At the end of all the pain they go throught most are killed without consent. 55% of them die from the actual experiments.

An interesting as well as an utterly gross fact to be digested, is that an estimated 103,800 animals are not administered with any medication to cease partially or completely, the pain caused due to animal testing. The pain by no means is minimal. The procedure being conducted on the animal may be extremely painful. When humans are petrified at the proposal of getting 'poked' by a medical practitioner, wonder what happens to animals at the idea of being tested upon? These are not given any medication reduce the pain.

In a world where humans are entitled to practice their right to freedom and independent living, it is saddening that animals are at the lab assistant's and the tester's mercy.

More proof Animal Cruelty exist laboratories:

"Eleven "CU-34" Monkeys Transferred to Sanctuary"
For years, the Committee for Research Accountability, a project of IDA, fought to secure the release of 34 monkeys from the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center (UCDHSC). These monkeys, who had lived at UCDHSC their entire lives, were the subjects of cruel alcoholism and maternal separation studies conducted by researcher Mark Laudenslager. In September 2006, the University of Colorado Regents finally voted to relocate 11 of these monkeys from a 100 year old basement to a sanctuary in Texas where they will be able to experience freedom from abuse for the first time in their lives.

"Criminal Charges Brought Against Alamogordo Primate Facility"
For the first time in U.S. history, a New Mexico District Attorney brought criminal charges for animal cruelty against a research facility for alleged institutional neglect of chimpanzees. The unprecedented complaint against Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF) was prompted by evidence provided by IDA through our network of whistleblowers concerning the deaths of two chimpanzees and the near-death of another. While a conviction was not handed down to those responsible for managing APF's labs, the historic charges remain a searing indictment of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which bears the ultimate responsibility for these chimpanzees' welfare.

Pictures of Animal Cruelty in labs:

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...

Philosophy:
If animal testing was necessary for humanity, we would've died thousands of years ago.

My opponent did not argue that killing an animal an animal for science is like killing an pet. Most Americans see their pets as family. In fact, Americans spend more money anually on their pets than on babies.[4] Animals are our brothers and sisters. We should not kill them, that would be like killing our actual brothers and sisters.

Animal rights are not a far fetched idea. Animal rights can be assigned according to animal psychology Jeremy Bentham - "While critics question where the line would be drawn, fearing that animal rights activists would grant rights to single cell organisms, the general consensus in the animal rights community is that rights should be conferred only to animals that can suffer. This is a psychological distinction that is possible to make in acceptable terms. And, the main right being granted is the right to avoid suffering at the hands of humans."

Cost:
Animal testing cost between 12-16 billion dollars a year.[5][6] That is not out-pocket money. That costs from us taxpayers. This wasteful spending is unnecessary, many alternativas are in place already for use. Less costly, less cruel, more effective.

Alternatives:
"Only 6% of Animal research is for medical reasons." [1]

"Animal testing can be replaced by at least 450 metjods at this time." [1]

Alternatives to animal tests are effective, reliable, affordable and humane.�Proponents of non-animal testing methods in the scientific community have shown that these methods are quicker and cost-effective. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible.

Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides more than 120 types of human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases. In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases.

[1] http://www.aboutmyplanet.com...
[2] http://www.buzzle.com...
[3] http://www.21stcenturycares.org...
[4] http://www.petfoodindustry.com...
[5] http://www.change.org...
[6] http://www.change.org...

Thank you. :)
TUF

Pro

****REBUTTALS****

"Ok my opponent seems to have gotten more aggressive last round. It's okay. To each their own."

I have, but understandably so. You seem to be ignoring a lot of evidence that I pointed out, as well as arguments. Not only that but your arguments are contrived and repetitive. I give a rebuttal to something, yet you continue to ignore it and argue the same thing as if my arguments were non-existent. Between that and the Copy pasta, I have to admit I am a pretty aggravated. Moving on.

"First I would like to mention that my opponent contradicted himself.

Round 2:"The main point however, that would like to accomplish, is that it doesn't matter how much resemblance to the human DNA animals resemble, as long as the specific tested gene article resembles that of a human."
Round 3: "It [DNA] has everything to do with effectiveness. I have proven this. Your point false because it lacks the evidence to support this emotion riddled statement"

How are these statements contradictory? They both prove the same point. DNA resemblance being similar to human DNA, means a higher likelihood of success for the medical practioner. The similarities in the gene make-up are a testament to the fact that the effectiveness will work inevitably.

"I'm getting mixed arguments from my opponent. Does DNA resemblance matter or not? Pro doesn't make it clear with his paradoxical arguments."

I would really like you to explain not only how they contradict, but how they are paradoxical when they work together in context of achieving similar DNA.

"In fact, less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals"

What's the relevance here? We are finding cures for HUMANS through animal testing. Finding cures for animals through the process here and there is just a helpful benefit along the way.

"Most medical experts agree that data from animal tests cannot be extrapolated safely to human patients."

False dichotomy, and contrived.

The source is an article by an Internet user. None of his sources are listed, and he fails to explain how any of the information therein is achieved. Why? Because it's false doctrine. Much like that of what PETA uses on their site. Interesting no?

http://www.buzzle.com...

Animal can cause birth defects. 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing.

Also this makes no sense, because the point of animal testing is to provide a safe medicinal environment for the humans. Humans wouldn't use any sort of medicine if it wasn't proven to be safe first on animals. What exactly causes still births? I am excited for your explanation of false 'facts'.


"Not only do people who hurt animals abuse them. Studies show that people who abuse animals for selfish purposes don't stop there, they move on to human abuse."

What the- Are you kidding me? To the audience: I am bolding the above statement so you can see just how ridiculous this debate has become. We are no longer arguing animal testing it seems. My opponent has instead made an argument against animal abuse. Where did I advocate that animal abuse is okay? This is a manipulation attempt on emotion, trying to fool the audience into thinking I feel animal abuse is okay. This is extremely abusive, and I ask that this carries over both the conduct and arguments point by the viewers.


"My opponent did not provide a list that says how animal testing does more good them harm. Rather he just gave a bunch of links, most just take me to the front page of every website. None of those links say "Animal testing does more good than bad" or anything close to that. Some of those links didn't even work from my experience. I gave 50 ways how animal testing hurts humans. Yet the good it has done that I read is AIDS, Polio, Stroke. Beyond that my opponent failed to provide one a link that gives 50 or more ways that says animal testing does more good than harm."

You fail to understand. Each of those links provide a source to a medical research or study that has been benefited because of animal testing. Take your contrived and emotional link of 50 things, and throw it off a cliff. It does not prove that the advance in medical research, and the saving of human lives is less important than the death of a few animals.

"My opponent says the animals tested on are kept in a humane environment. Yet I have not read that anywhere. I would like an article that says animals aren't mistreated."

Again, at the audience: How can I attempt to debate someone who fails to even try and read my arguments? For my opponents clarification, let's go back to R2, where I quote the site of an animal testing site that proves they do not mis-treat animals in their practices. You completely ignore this. Next time, I suggest purchasing reading glasses my friend.

Anyways, if you are too lazy to read my quotations from the site, you can read it off the site yourself.

http://www.aspca.org...

"Most of the animals that are tested are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. At the end of all the pain they go through most are killed without consent. 55% of them die from the actual experiments"

Specieism argument, See round 1.

"An interesting as well as an utterly gross fact to be digested, is that an estimated 103,800 animals are not administered with any medication to cease partially or completely, the pain caused due to animal testing. The pain by no means is minimal. The procedure being conducted on the animal may be extremely painful. When humans are petrified at the proposal of getting 'poked' by a medical practitioner, wonder what happens to animals at the idea of being tested upon? These are not given any medication reduce the pain."

Specieism argument, See round 1.

"If animal testing was necessary for humanity, we would've died thousands of years ago."

If animal testing was implemented thousands of years ago, it would have saved hundreds upon thousands of human lives. You see what I did there? I twisted one of your many emotion based false dichotomy arguments, and showed the truth of the matter with it. Emotion does nothing over logic, however, if you want to get into the emotion arguments, I can ask you why it is okay for humans to die in place of animals?

"My opponent did not argue that killing an animal an animal for science is like killing an pet. Most Americans see their pets as family. In fact, Americans spend more money annually on their pets than on babies.[4] Animals are our brothers and sisters. We should not kill them, that would be like killing our actual brothers and sisters."

Animals are nothing more than tools used for our amusement, you cannot deny this. You can love a pet, and be-friend it. But at the end of the day, you control that pet, as a mother controls a child. You tell it how to act or behave such that is appropriate with your standards. If a dog barks loudly, then humans will tell it to stop, and the dog will, or it will suffer some sort of consequence. It doesn't happen the other way around. If Animals were our equals, they would take us on walks, and make us do chores. We ride horses, not the other way around. No matter what way you look at it, Animals are simply tools, and we use them for our own selfish purposes, in and out side of animal testing. If my opponent condones having pets, than he condones the use of animal testing, plain and simple.

"Animal testing cost between 12-16 billion dollars a year.[5][6] That is not out-pocket money. That costs from us taxpayers. This wasteful spending is unnecessary, many alternatives are in place already for use. Less costly, less cruel, more effective."

My opponent ignores my arguments on this for the 3rd time. I am not going to bother repeating myself, this is just getting ridiculous.

"Alternatives to animal tests are effective, reliable, affordable and humane."

MY arguments were ignore again. *gasps* Big surprise.

My opponent ignores arguments, and evidence. I feel like I am talking to a wall. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Yunior4life

Con

Ok. Last round. Yay. :)

Society:
I would first like to say that I never denied animal testing in past medication before scientific advancement. I would like to make it clear animal testing WAS beneficial and DID help humanity. However, this debate is about the present and how it benefits or hurts society today.

It DID bring polio down and it DID hurt people in the past. However, today in the 21st century it is no longer helping us. Nor is it hurting us. It helped, it hurt. Now it is not helping nor hurting humans. Therefore it shouldn't be persued anymore. Without animal testing scientist would scramble to find even more alternative making more scientific advancements.

Animals:
Animal testing today is not helping or hurting humans, like I mentioned previously. It is still hurting animal though. Life in a cage is still life in a cage. Quoting the link my opponent gave.

"On the other hand, they are still kept in cages. A cage can never be as interesting, stimulating, or open as a natural habitat. This can be a problem especially for the more intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates. They can become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise."

Many of us would hate being subjected to boredom and loniless. While SOME institutions use medicine to prevent physical pain, there is nothing that can prevent emotional or pdychological pain. These animals would rather live free in the jungle rather than in a laboratory where they must wait and wait for a procedure. When these animals are no longer in use they are euthanized involuntarily instead of being set free. I already gave links to that in my previous arguments.

Philosophy:
The philosphy argument will never lead anywhere it's just what people believe. With that being said I would still like to give my opinion.

Animals are not our tools. I have never heard of people take their tools to the groomer, or feed them tool food, I've heard of animal doctors(vets) but not tool doctors. Just like a mother can't hit a child for not listening, a person can't hit their pet for not listening. Sure, we must teach our pets obedience, we must also teach our kids obedience. Abuse of a pet is no better than abuse of a child. Unfortunately, that is what animal testing is today, abuse.

I would not want to live with cure it means thousands of animal dies for me. I don't see my life as more important than an animals. I hope I would never have to come to a decision between an animal or my mom. I would choose my mom. But obviously I could rephrase that and say a stranger or my mom. I would still choose my mom. Not because one species is inferior to the other, but because emotion will always play a part in society. We can't base our judgement on 100% facts. It always has to be 50/50. Let's try that again, stranger or my pet. Bye human. :)

I don't believe animals exist for humams. I mean why do spiders exist then. We don't eat them we don't use them. Why do sharks exist, we don't eat them, we don't use them. Animals existed millions of years before humans. Why would animal exist if there was no human to use them? Maybe because it isn't our duty to use them.

This was just my opinion. As I mentioned in the first sentence of this argument. Obviously, other people would feel different.

Cost:
As I said in the first round it is not necessary. Those 16 billion dollars are 6.4 times the cost the Mars Rover($2.5 billion). All that money could be used to for patients who don't have health insurance to help them with their disease, instead of hurting another living being. It is still a lot of money. I would not like to see my tax money being used on something that kills many creatures but only saves a few.

Alternatives:
Animal testing is no longer necessary with over 450 alternatives that work. Scientist are not using alternatives when it's possible. Which is wrong. No alternative can be denied, all of them work, otherwise we wouldn't call them alternatives.

Three R's of Animal Testing alternatives: (From the link my opponent gave)

Replacement - Whenever possible, we should replace living, feeling animals with other things like tissue cultures and computer simulations. In addition, we should actively search for new ways and try to develop new technologies that can replace live, feeling animals in the lab.

Reduction - Reducing the number of animals used in research. While we are trying to replace animals, we need to reduce the number of animals used in research to the smallest number possible. We should use as few animals in an experiment as we can. We should be very careful to be sure that experiments on animals are necessary.

Refinement - Improving the lives of animals used in research. If we have to do an experiment that uses animals, then we must improve the living conditions of the animals used in research. The Animal Welfare Act mostly addresses refinement.

With these alternatives a tremendous of lives will be saved. All types of lives humans and animals.

Sources:
http://www.aspca.org...

Thank you to my opponent TUF for accepting this debate. He's really good debater. Good luck everyone. :)
TUF

Pro

Since I started this debate, and had an extra round to debate, where my opponent didn't, I promised him I wouldn't post an actual argument here.

So I will just sum up why I feel you should vote for me in this debate.



****VOTERS****

CONDUCT
: PRO. I Feel I am deserving of the conduct point for several reason. The first is that my opponent completely dis-regaurds 75% of my arguments. Quite a few times throughout this debate my opponent will say that I lack evidence for something, that I completely did add in round 1-2. For example he said that I didn't provide proof of animals being treated properly at the testing centers, where in round 2, I dedicated over 1500 characters to explaining how they were treated properly. This is not the only time however he completely ignores evidence and arguments. Twice he says there is no proof that animal testing even helps humans. Again, in R2, I made another 1500 or so characters to explaining all of the diseases it has cured, and posted links to sites that testify to this. Ignoring arguments is completely conduct worthy, especially when he calls me out for not making them, why I did in fact make them. The next thing that is completely annoying, is that all of my opponents arguments are from unfounded sites, and a plethora of his text is actually copy and pasted. No quotes, no source, etc, that says the words are even from the site he C/P'ed from. I called him out on this in R2, after he copies something of the homepage of PETA. Based on several factors, you have to give me the conduct point.

S/G: I have spell checked, and grammar checked each of my responses. While at times I had a hard time reading the Con's arguments due to both spelling and grammar mistakes. Vote on this how you will though.

ARGUMENTS: My opponent completely dis-regards my philosophic principle of Utilitarianism. Not once does he make a point referring to how stopping animal testing will benefit EVERYONE. I have proven that animal testing would be very detrimental to humanity if it was dis-continued, and proved how it is even helpful to the animals involved. I have also proven how even with all that aside, we need to look over are own race before others. There are billions of animals in the world. Most of the animals we test on are born and bread in our very own labs, so it's not like were decreasing a population, or destroying a species. Over all I have shown that there are extreme harms in stopping animal testing.

SOURCES: My sources Are from medical sites that have benefited and cured diseases from animal testing. All of my information is completely 100% accurate. My opponents arguments either come from a biased liberal site, with un-proven information, or from articles on the opinion of a like minded individual. They are purely emotion based, and lacking of substance. My evidence is hard evidence that shows that animal testing is the only way to benefit majorly by learning how to over come diseases.


It is for all these reasons, and more, that I feel I have won this debate.

I thank my opponent for the time and effort he has put forth into this debate, and wish him luck in the voting period. Thankyou!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by larry1 3 years ago
larry1
Animal lovers.... animals are humans. C'mon. You're killin' me here.... :\
Posted by Noradrenergic 4 years ago
Noradrenergic
I would like to see the specieism defense fleshed out a bit more.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I just want to say I find it funny how one is an angel and the other is a horny babe.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Since I started the arguments, I will be posting nothing in the final round to make it fair, is that okay?
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Hmm, thats odd. For some reason, none of my bolding, or italics carried through. This makes things a little more difficult to read, I appolagize.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Yunior4lifeTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument's were more rooted in scientific fact rather than Con's which were rooted in idealism and wishful thinking. I don't see any superior methods to animal testing, nor am I convinced that animal testing is truly bad for animals, so I give Pro the win.