The Instigator
polka-dots323
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
39 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,471 times Debate No: 2553
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (18)

 

polka-dots323

Con

What else is there to really say? Animal testing is cruel. Just browse Google Images and you'll come up with many pictures of the poor animals. They have no voice, so we must speak for them.
beem0r

Pro

Animal testing is a good thing. While it is not the only possibility, the alternatives are worse. I therefore advocate the continuation of animal testing.

First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see.

First, we could test products not on animals, but on humans.
Second, we could not test products at all.

Both of these lead to the same dreadful end: those same misfortunes that are sometimes brought upon animals would be brought upon humans instead. This is by no means more fair than the alternative, and by most viewpoints, it is a far worse crime (humans are generally considered to have more worth than animals).

Now, let me expand upon my argument.

We are a people in the habit of harming other beings in order to help ourselves. Unfortunately, it is something that simply must be done: the human race, as well as most other species, rely on harming other life to prosper.

A predator kills its prey - are you against the food chain?
People, too, kill animals for food - are you advocating vegetarianism?
People also take advantage of animals to make other products, including some food and fabric - are you advocating the discontinuation of this practice?
People kill bacteria that are living inside them - are you advocating the disuse of medicine?
Construction ends the lives of trees - are you advocating that it too is wrong?

Animal testing should be done, as should all the things above. Why? Because they are helpful practices for us to use. In none of the examples above did the victim 'ask' for it, but sometimes you get something you didn't ask for.

My opponent is correct when he says that animals have no voice, and we must speak for them. However, that voice is clearly and justifiably saying that we should continue testing on animals. Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead. What next, should we become cannibals to satisfy our need for meat?

We, just as every other type of animal out there does, place some of our own burdens onto other beings. A cow gets hungry? He eats some grass. A lion gets hungry? He eats a cow. A beaver wants to make a dam? He destroys some trees. A man needs a jacket and a meal? He kills a cow. A man needs to test a new product or do research? When he can, he places this burden on another lifeform.

It is a matter of self interest, and I see no justifiable reason to betray it.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
polka-dots323

Con

Thank you for accepting to this debate.

First off, I would like to point out I'm a female. Secondly, what does animal TESTING have anything to do with eating meat? I do agree that this is a part of the food chain, but do you have to also kill animals for useless things such as trying out a cosmetics line? Of course, there will be animals killed. It's a part of life. I do not object to that. What I AM trying to say here, however, is that we are not testing for the bare minimum and there are possible alternatives that could be created.

"Animal testing is a good thing."

How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products?

"First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see."

I have another possibility also. I do agree that testing on humans would be a bad idea. Why don't we create scientifical ways to test products? If science and technology can create these amazing computers we are on, surely we can create alternatives to testing products.

"Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead"

Not if we create alternatives.

Also, about your statement about the food chain. We are discussing animal testing. Not the food chain and being a vegetarian. That is off topic and a whole other debate. Same goes for your comments on bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single celled; they are not able to respond to surroundings as intelligently as animals that have more cells, and a NUCLEUS. Also, the bacteria are harming us. These poor animals are NOT harming us. Just to comment on your statement.

I do not see one clear or visible statement you made about why animal testing is good and should be allowed.
beem0r

Pro

Apologies to my opponent for calling her a him, I was unaware and wrongfully assumed she was male.

My opponent has wholly misunderstood my argument. Where it might normally be irrelevant that people eat animals for food, I was establishing this as a parallel case. It is for the same reasons that we should continue consuming animals that we should continue testing products on animals. We do both of these things because animals generally have no use to us besides the use we choose to use them for. An animal is useless to us unless we can get products from it (fur, milk, etc), get meat from it, or use it in any other way to help us. Included in this last option is the usefulness of a pet (gives the owner happiness), the usefulness of seeing eye dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, etc, or the usefulness of an animal we use for product testing.

My opponent directly asked "How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products?"

My opponent already answered that question himself: "...to test products?". It is good because testing products is useful to society, much more than the lives of a very small number of animals who otherwise would not be helping our society.

My opponent also has come up with a supposedly better answer for the products that need testing: we should develop ways to test products without the possible rare harm to an animal. While it could be said that this would be preferable, we do not currently have such a method. Therefore, until such a method is created, we should continue testing on animals, as it is the best option we currently have.

My opponent is hoping you will vote for him based on your own feelings, based on your own empathy he has appealed to. However, he has failed to show why it is wrong for us to test products on animals. Do not vote based on your own feelings; rather, vote based on which side made the more solid case.

Thank you for reading. That is all.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
But people animals and people react differently with different medications!!!!
I don't know if that was brought up but it's true!!!!
And proof sorry about your mom but in the years that they have tested on animals they still havent come up with a cure for M.S. have they yo??????
Posted by proof317 8 years ago
proof317
My mother has M.S.
I support any and all testing that it takes to some up with a cure
Stem cell research? Yes.
If they have to cut my leg off and cram it up a camels butt all the way to his neck and strangle him to death to get a research answer, then yes, screw P.E.T.A and the horse they road in on.
TEST AWAY!!!
Posted by polka-dots323 8 years ago
polka-dots323
You stated that animal testing is a good thing, so therefore I believed that you were implying that it will always continue to be a good thing, because you also never specified that in the debate. My apoligies for the misunderstanding.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
I did specify that we should continue using animal testing because we don't HAVE an alternative. I didn't say we never WILL have an alternative. That's like making a debate against abortion, but saying it should be continued until we have a better alternative. It doesn't make sense, and it would be you who should have specified from the start that you just meant it should be stopped sometime in the future. Animal testing IS a good thing. I never said it always will be.
Posted by polka-dots323 8 years ago
polka-dots323
You should have asked that in the debate. This debate was not, we should stop animal testing now. It was about animal testing period. I do believe that we need to start working now to acheieve alternatives.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
polka, what should we do while we wait for an alternative? Not make new products, or not test them? It's most helpful for us to both pursue new methods and continue using the best current method, which is what we do in all fields. We don't stop growing corn because there might be a better agricultural system later. We don't stop driving cars because eventually we can get alternative fuel sources. Neither should we.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
@Con

Incorrect. Your arguments were filled with strawman fallacies and appeals to pity.

Examples are your opening plea to look at google images, your statement that animal cruelty is cruel, your statement that animal testing leads only to the marketing of cosmetics, etc.

You also offer no logical proof as to why we should even care about other animals. Why do they deserve to NOT be tested?

In addition, several of Pro's arguments went over your head. Remember that animal testing exists and your proposal is to abandon it. This means taking action against an existing practice. It was your duty to provide an argument and you have failed.

You have objectively lost this debate.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
http://youtube.com...
I've been posting this in many debates on animal testing. It's a pretty useful tool for either side. On the one hand, it's the precursor to transplantation. Also on that hand it's actually kind of cool. And on the other hand, it is undeniably, absolutely disturbing on many many different levels.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmm, this debate was a little to short which makes it a bit hard to vote on. However Beem0r pulls this into present tense and since the resolution makes no mention of a tense I'll just have to go with that.

Should have been a round at least longer =/
Posted by polka-dots323 8 years ago
polka-dots323
I do hope that voters vote again, not according to their opinion, but on who made the better argument. My opponent's only reason why we should not test on animals is becuase we have no alternative. I replied to this comment saying that "We could find alternatives with technology and science." My opponent stated, "...we do not currently have such a method. " That is true, but we will never have an alternative unless we try. Also, the topic of this debate was simply Animal Testing. It was not, Animal Testing Should be Banned Now. I have stated that animals do not deserve to be treated so cruely (see: http://www.studentsforbhopal.org...) As you can see from these photos, in order to test most products, not only hair/fur needs to be removed, but also skin. These poor and innocent animals cannot stop this torture, but we can. Please consider these points and others I have stated. :)
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grandma 8 years ago
Grandma
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by proof317 8 years ago
proof317
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by clemsongirl5353 8 years ago
clemsongirl5353
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mocha 8 years ago
mocha
polka-dots323beem0rTied
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:30