The Instigator
megan121812
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,320 times Debate No: 40813
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

megan121812

Pro

Hello, this is my first debate, so please tell me if I have any formatting issues.

I would like to argue that animal testing (for medical purposes) is acceptable, and that we definitely need it to succeed as a species. First round is acceptance, second round I will post my argument and con (against) will post their rebuttal.
dtaylor971

Con

I will accept this debate. Welcome to debate.org, it's very fun!

P.S: This debate is going to get heated. We'll still be friends in the end, though.
Debate Round No. 1
megan121812

Pro

most people are against animal testing because it kills 'sweet little' animals. However, birds (mostly poultry), rats and mice make up to about 95 percent of all animals tested on. These are the same animals that are slaughtered for food, and exterminated for being pests everyday. We cannot even begin to argue against animal testing when killing any animal anytime is still legal.

Would you be willing to give up cancer treatment, which saves thousands world wide every year, for a thousand rats? Many scientists, like professor john stein, say that they would not be able to conduct the experiments that they do to try to better understand our world without the use of animals. It may seem wrong to some people, but it is my opinion that humans are of more value than other animals. We can think on a higher level than them, and we can understand pain too. When it comes between another animal suffering or a human suffering, I would have to choose another animal.

Animal testing is necessary to our society, to ensure that large amounts of human beings can survive.

http://www.4thought.tv...
http://www.neavs.org...
dtaylor971

Con


So I guess we started.

Just a note: this means no harm to any reader of this debate. Thank you and enjoy your decent into my debate! :)

I would like to start my debate off with some defenses of mine.

"Most people are against animal testing because it kills 'sweet little' animals."

...Really? I'm against it because it is wrong to sacrifice their lives for our benefits. This part is entirely pending opinion. And, by the way, it is only 85-87%, just so you know. [1]

"These are the same animals that are slaughtered for food, and exterminated for being pests everyday."
Rats and mice are slaughtered for food? I would like to know where they test rats and slaughter them. And for the extermination part, they should live in their natural habitat, not our houses. Like we shouldn't be living in the rainforest.

"Would you be willing to give up cancer treatment, which saves thousands world wide every year, for a thousand rats?"
This is what really makes me mad. Look, it's not a thousand. It is almost 265,000... per day. That's well over 100,000,000 per YEAR. And only 18% are rats and mice. 15% are the animals that most of us hold dear, probably in your household right now: dogs, cats, bunnies, and fish. And mice can be pets, too. Believe it or not, so can rats. We are killing the things we love the most. And as for cancer treatment, it doesn't work all of the time. Why are we still dying from cancer if it is such a success? Why is lung and heart cancer a death sentence? Why is my friends mom dying from cancer?

"Animal testing is necessary to our society, to ensure that large amounts of human beings can survive."
I'm guessing you don't see humans as the same equivalent as animals. I've prepared a ratio for us to show you just how ridiculous animal testing is. I will also make an algebraic expression later on.
Animals killed per year in animal testing: ≥100,000,000 per year- worldwide.
People saved per year due to animal testing: ≤5,000,000 worldwide is a safe bet. [2]
100,000,000:5,000,000
A20:H1
20 animals per human. Are we really that selfish? Lets say x= animals tested and y= humans saved.
20x=y. So by solving algebra, an animal is about 1/20th as important as we are. Math defies the logic of animal testing right there.

My turn!

Argument 1: We aren't using animals only to find cures... [4]
The majority of the people, probably you, think that animal testing is only used to find cures. But it is used on shampoo, toothpaste, pesticides, mouthwash, makeup, and other everyday household items. In fact, it is arguable that vaccinations are only a small part of animal testing! When you wash your clothes with the "new and improved" laundry detergent, you are really washing your clothes with animal blood and fur. Animal testing could be greatly reduced if we just stick with one brand of everything. Look at us: I'm pretty sure we have 100 companies destined to toilet paper, or wiping our butt. We have well over 1,000 brands of shampoos and soaps. Do we really have to be so greedy? If we just stuck on one brand, more than 5,000,000 animals would be saved, or the same amount of humans animal testing "supposedly" saves per year.
But what are we really being saved from? The deathly stain on your t-shirt that is about a millimeter wide? Those tiny germs on your hands? Those unwashed hair fragments? What I'm saying here is that the world of animal testing goes far, far beyond just finding cures for diseases. In China, every product has to be animal tested for safety. So yeah, it goes a loooooooong was more than finding cures...

Argument 2: Are they even reliable? [4]
Are animals even reliable? On various sites, it says that 92% of products or cures that pass in animals are rendered useless or dangerous shortly after. This has been responsible for 70,000 deaths in the U.K due to faulty animal testing [4]. That means humans are being killed by animal testing, also! Only 1.18% of all diseases in humans occur in animals, making the vast majority of the diseases we are trying to useless by animal testing [4]. We are also throwing away many good products, as 75% of side effects observed in animals are never found in humans [4]. So I will go as far to ask you: are they even reliable?

Argument 3: Abuse
If you think animals are kept on comfy beds, you are wrong. They are kept in cold cages with little food or water, literally like a jail cell. And scientists don't exactly treat them like the Pope, either. If you want, click on the [5] link. But I will warn you, it made me cry and is really disturbing how cold-hearted those people are. They truly hate animals. And here's another thing: after being tested, animals are almost always killed, and it doesn't matter whether they passed the test or not. Think about that, please!

This has been a really fun debate for me so far! :)
THANK YOU FOR READING AND GOD BLESS! :D


[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[2] http://www.sanofipasteur.com...
[3] http://www.dosomething.org...
[4] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...
[5] http://www.peta2.com... *WARNING!!! LANGUAGE IS IN THIS VIDEO. WATCH AT OWN RISK!!!!!





Debate Round No. 2
megan121812

Pro

Okay! Here are some of my defences:

"Rats and mice are slaughtered for food? I would like to know where they test rats and slaughter them. And for the extermination part, they should live in their natural habitat, not our houses. Like we shouldn't be living in the rainforest."

I didn't say that rats and mice were slaughtered for food. When rats and mice do come into our houses for habitat, the vast majority of people would choose to exterminate them, either with the help of a company or with traps. Maybe we shouldn't be cutting down the rainforest, but this is another topic.

"And only 18% are rats and mice."

What was your source for this information? Many statistics say that about 95% of animals tested on are mice,birds and rats. Im not trying to be rude, but maybe this was a typo?

"Why are we still dying from cancer if it is such a success? Why is lung and heart cancer a death sentence? Why is my friends mom dying from cancer"

First off, I'm so sorry about your friends mom. I hope that she pulls through! However, animal testing DOES help cure disease, look at the statistics for the mortality rate in patients with childhood leukaemia. In 1960, it was more than 90%. However, in 2000, it was below 10%. Animal testing was used in this research, and therefore played an important role in treating cancer. You cannot argue that just because not all diseases are cured animal testing is useless.

"I'm guessing you don't see humans as the same equivalent as animals."

You're right, I don't. Although animals can definately feel pain, and most can comprehend basic ideas, I believe that other animals are not equivalent to humans. My dog might understand that it is a hot day, but I can undersand that it is hot day outside, because the earth is positioned in a way where the suns rays are hitting my city more directly. Humans are not equivalent to other animals, our thought process is much more advanced.

"But it is used on shampoo, toothpaste, pesticides, mouthwash, makeup, and other everyday household items."

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in the title, but i specified in the indroduction and comments that I meant animal testing for medical purposes only.

"So I will go as far to ask you: are they even reliable?"

Animal testing exists because we need to know how certain chemicals might react to our own body. Animals do help us to understand how the drug works on a living organ system, much like our own. Although a human body will in most cases not react exactly the same way to a drug that the animal body will, the animal body will still be able to tell us the toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, side-effects and sometimes, efficacy of the drug. Human trials are then undertaken to make sure that the animal tests have accurately predicted the effects and side-effects of the new drugs on humans. Drugs are never put into circulation without first being tested on humans after animals, but animals do play a huge role in helping us predict the outcome of drugs on humans.

"Argument 3: Abuse"

This argument really bothers me. You make it sound as though scientists who test on animals are cold hearted people without mercy, and that anybody who supports animal testing or takes part in it is an animal hater. This is NOT true. It is the law that testing on animals MUST be carried out with close attention to minimising the pain and suffering caused to them. Animal reserchers do not hate animals, they do all that they can to insure that the animal is in as little pain as possible. Animals are to be killed after an experiment if they are in pain- this is a law too. Would you rather have the animal suffer for days, and then die? The animals are also required to be killed before they regain any consciousness (as quickly as possible). It doesn't matter if the animals "passed" the test or not, if the animal is suffering it should be put down. It isn't fair to argue with information meant to evoke emotion from readers. Yes, you posted a video of animals being treated cruelly. No, you don't know that this is what happens everyday. You don't see the benefit it has to our world. You don't know that all people who test on animals are cold-hearted.

Diseases that animal testing has helped to treat:
-Hepatitis c
-epilepsy
-childhood leukaemia
-Parkinsons disease
-Diabetes
-Cystic Fibrosis
-Heart Disease

Animals save lives

http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://www.aaalac.org...
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...
http://www.cancer.org...
http://www.amprogress.org...
http://www.amprogress.org...

Sorry, I would have made your statements in bold, but my computer wasn't working quite right! This debate has been a very fun experience for me! God bless!
dtaylor971

Con

"I didn't say that rats and mice were slaughtered for food."
You did not say that whole phrase entirely, but you said, "these are the same animals that we are killing every day for food."

"I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe this was a typo?"
My bad. Yeah, it was a typo. No idea how it happened, I meant to say 85% :// You said 95%, so I tried to counter it with a righter source.

"You cannot argue that just because not all diseases are cured animal testing is useless."
I never completely said that it was useless. In some ways, it is utterly useless. What I'm trying to say is that the useless outweighs the useful most of the time. Most of the diseases of cancer are still incurable. Heart, lung, and cancer in the elderly are mostly incurable. Heart disease in the advanced stages are just 0.3% [1], or when people need the treatment the most. Lung cancer in any stage is just 16.3%. I will say it has improved, but barely [2].

"Humans are not equivalent to other animals, our thought process is much more advanced."
Yes, we are more advanced. But 20x more advanced? Imagine if a rats' thoughts was 20x more advanced. They'd be able to do a ton more than humans. Chimps, who also are tested, know how to use tools. One can only imagine what would happen if their thought train was increased by 20x! So, more advanced? Sure. 20x more advanced? No way.

"Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in the title, but I specified in the introduction and comments that I meant animal testing for medical purposes only."
Yeah, I saw that in the comments about a day ago. But it simple says "animal testing" as the title, and that's what I am debating on. So, therefore, you also have to argue on why it is important on other things that we need. Next time, be more specific. Just a first time error. I did it once, too. No worries :)!

"Animal testing exists because we need to know how certain chemicals might react to our own body."
Yes, but it is not like we have other options [3]*. For one example, to cross out your argument, a company called "Hµrel [4]" made a 3-d human liver (artificial, of course) that sees what some chemicals disturbs the human body. We don't need animals for that. For some products and drugs, CeeTox [3]* made a test tube to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, etc. This can be used to replace animal testing. Also, animals can't talk to the testers, and neither can the test tube. So it is technically the same.

"This argument really bothers me. You make it sound as though scientists who test on animals are cold hearted people without mercy, and that anybody who supports animal testing or takes part in it is an animal hater."
Maybe I said that wrong. I meant the people in the video were cold-hearted, not all animal testers. I'm sure that some like animals. But I'm saying that some of the ones are like the people in the video. Some may have personal things against animals, although I am not sure about that.

"Animals are to be killed after an experiment if they are in pain- this is a law too. Would you rather have the animal suffer for days, and then die?"
First off, I don't think that law matters, since I am trying to appeal the animal testing act. So they kill animals after testing always. Since we can't really tell that animals feel pain, many animals have probably been killed when they didn't need to be killed. I would rather the animal die, but I don't want them to feel any pain in the first place!

"No, you don't know that this is what happens everyday."
Do you want me to name all of the arguments YOU don't completely know? But with 100M animals being tested a year in many different facilities, I'm pretty sure this happens every day.

"Animals save lives."
People take lives.

Now there is one argument I really feel I need to add. And here it is.

How many are actually used per test?
Per test, I went to this link [5] to show us how many animals are used per test.

•Skin sanitization: 16 mice or 32 guinea pigs
•Eye irritation: 1-3 rabbits
•Developmental toxicity (tests for birth defects): 480 rabbits (100 adult females and 480 pups) or 1,300 rats (100 adult females and 1,200 pups). And yet, we still have so many birth defects.
• Acute oral toxicity (Determines the amount of a substance that causes half of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is swallowed): 7 rats.

You may think a single mice or rat is O.K for animal testing. But when you see how many are put together per each experiment, it just becomes downright wrong.

Thank you for the debate so far, good job, and God Bless :)!




*I know that this is PETA, but it still a reliable source.

[1] https://sites.google.com...
[2] http://www.lung.org...
[3] http://www.peta.org...
[4] http://hurelcorp.com...
[5] http://www.humanesociety.org...






Debate Round No. 3
megan121812

Pro

You did not say that whole phrase entirely, but you said, "these are the same animals that we are killing every day for food."

Okay, maybe I should have worded this differently, but if you check, I also said "and exterminated". I thought that I was being clear enough at the time, but I'll work on it.

" What I'm trying to say is that the useless outweighs the useful most of the time."

So you're saying that just because something isn't perfect, we should give up on it? Who are you to decide whether the thousands of people saved from diseases each year are worth it or not? Also, medicine has not just BARELY improved! Seriously, did you see what I posted about childhood leukemia? A 90% mortality rate, now only at a 10% mortality rate. 1955 was the first time that the polio vaccine was discovered. Polio was once a death sentence too, much like lung cancer. What would have happened if Jonas Salk, the inventor of the vaccine, had just given up on healthcare because it has "barely improved"? You can argue the morality of animal testing, but it's use to medicine and medicine's evolution are very large.

" Imagine if a rats' thoughts was 20x more advanced"

But the rats intelligence wouldn't be twenty times more advanced- you'd just have twenty rats. The rats aren't mushed together, each one is still much less advanced as humans.

" But I'm saying that some of the ones are like the people in the video."

Yes, I'm sure that some of them are, but they aren't legally allowed to be. What they are doing to the animals is animal abuse, not animal testing.

"First off, I don't think that law matters, since I am trying to appeal the animal testing act."

I'm not making the argument that animal testing is legal, and therefore moral. I'm saying that it isn't fair to say that the animals are always in pain, because they legally have to be in as little pain as possible.

"But with 100M animals being tested a year in many different facilities, I'm pretty sure this happens every day. "

Yes, but these people abusing animals aren't allowed to be! Should we ban having any children? There are also thousands of children being illegally abused, too.

I think that I've made all of my arguments! Thank you so much for this debate, it has been very fun. God bless!

http://www.achievement.org...
dtaylor971

Con

Good job debating.

"So you're saying that just because something isn't perfect, we should give up on it?"
Ok, I never came close to saying that because it wasn't perfect, we should give up on it. Also, those are one fo the very few diseases that animal testing has helped by a 50% survial rate.

"But the rats intelligence wouldn't be twenty times more advanced- you'd just have twenty rats."
I am multiplying the whole aspect of an animal, not just making 20 of them. That's one way to look at it, but it is less effective. I am looking at it in a manner as if a rat was 20x more advanced.

"What they are doing to the animals is animal abuse, not animal testing."
...Yetwe still have video evidence of them doing it. Therefore, during animal testing, animals can also be abused. If animal testing isn't almost literally animal abusing, then that video should be enough to push it through. The fact that animal testing is like animal abusement, I mean.

"Because they legally have to be in as little pain as possible."
Ok, you've missed the whole point of my argument. ANIMALS FEEL PAIN AND ARE IN AS MUCH PAIN AS POSSIBLE. That is the main reason for me to stop animal testing! (Of course, there are many other reasons I mentioned.)

"Yes, but these people abusing animals aren't allowed to be! Should we ban having any children? There are also thousands of children being illegally abused, too."
And yet they're doing it. Same goes for having children. Laws don't stop fathers from abusing children, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. In animal testing, it is happening at a significantly higher rate. For example, child abuse is getting hit with a beer bottle. Animal testing is getting your fur shaved off, burnt, have wires hooked up to you, feel intense pain, and then die.

Yep, that's my argument. Best of wishes and God Bless!










Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by megan121812 3 years ago
megan121812
Just want to clarify, I mean animal testing for medical purposes
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
megan121812dtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This a topic I feel very strongly about, so excuse the bias as I am trying to remain objective. Both of you had very good conduct, although pro shouldn't have bluntly began her arguments without first addressing his/her opponent, but it won't cost her any points. Spelling and grammar on both sides was a little disappointing. Frequent syntax errors and constant phrases that sound incoherent plagued both debaters. Both used sources, so there should be no controversy there. Arguments, both sides failed to develop their arguments in an effective manner. For the most part the debate consisted of quoting the adversary and forming a short rebuttal. That being said, con's arguments had more depth and were properly explained. I very much enjoyed the algebraic equation, it elucidated his arguments in a brilliant manner. That was the deciding factor for me due to the fact that pro had no answer for the grand scale of animal testing.