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

Animal Testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 63305
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)





Thanks joshianere for accepting this debate! I have been wanting to debate you for a while!

The resolution we will be debating is animal testing. It is defined as:

“Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops).” {1}

You may not vary from this definition.


R1: Pro does rules, con accepts.

R2: Pro presents up to 2 arguments, same as con. No rebuttals from con.

R3 Pro can rebut and state up to 2 more arguments. Same as con.

R4 Same as R3

R5 Pro can rebut and can state up to 2 more arguments. Con can rebut but can not rebut pro’s R5. Con may also present up to 2 new arguments. This round is also used for conclusion.

10,000 characters.

72 hours to post each round.

May the best debater win!


Again thanks,






I accept. I'm looking forward to a fun debate. I would ask the judges to keep their own personal views on animal testing out of their decision, and simply judge based on the merit of our arguments.
Good luck DDD.
Debate Round No. 1



Thanks for accepting! I don’t want to waste too many characters, so let’s go!



Ever had a family member or a good friend affected by cancer? If you have, then you know the struggle and pain of ever having to try, attempt, push yourself to live and survive it.

Some symptoms of cancer are:



-Skin changes:

These signs and symptoms include:

Darker looking skin (hyperpigmentation)

Yellowish skin and eyes (jaundice)

Reddened skin (erythema)

Itching (pruritis)

-Excessive hair growth

- Change in bowel habits or bladder function

-Sores that do not heal

-White patches inside the mouth or white spots on the tongue

-Unusual bleeding or discharge

-Unexplained weight loss


-Thickening or lump in the breast or other parts of the body

-Indigestion or trouble swallowing

-Recent change in a wart or mole or any new skin change

-Nagging cough or hoarseness”{1}

“it is estimated that around 8.2 million people died from cancer in 2012.” {3}

So, obviously cancer is bad. But what is a way that will slow it down? Cures. What has been an effective way to create cures?

“Thanks in large part to animal-based research, there is a new molecular and genetic understanding of tumor biology, leading to treatments that set out to more directly kill cancer cells, which are molecularly different from normal cells. Use of this knowledge to design drugs that focus on those abnormalities is called rational drug design, and is seen by many as the currently emerging future reality of cancer treatment — of "kinder and gentler" cancer therapies that only target abnormal cells.” {2}

Ever heard of HIV?

“ -Soaking night sweats

-Shaking chills or fever higher than 100 F (38 C) for several weeks


-Shortness of breath

-Chronic diarrhea

-Persistent white spots or unusual lesions on your tongue or in your mouth


-Persistent, unexplained fatigue

-Blurred and distorted vision

-Weight loss

-Skin rashes or bumps” {6}

Obviously bad. But what has animal research done to help people with HIV/AIDS?

“Research, including work with animal models, continues to develop new medicines with fewer side effects, as well as to create vaccine candidates that may one day make HIV infection preventable. “ {2}

I will name one more in depth disease and how animal testing helped. Then I will list (a quite long list of the diseases that have either helped or been fully cured because of animal testing.

The last major one is birth defects. Did you know that “Every three and a half minutes, a baby is born with a birth defect in [just] the United States.” {2}

Animal testing has helped 2 major baby defects:

  • “Folic Acid - Studies with animals determined that folic acid, a B vitamin, helps prevent serious birth defects of the brain and spinal cord when taken before conception and early in pregnancy. Since this discovery, a public education campaign launched in 1992 has prevented thousands of such birth defects.

  • Surfactant Therapy - One in eight babies in the United States is born too soon. The lungs in many of these premature children are not fully developed. Surfactant is a detergent-like substance produced in the lungs that aids in breathing. Since surfactant therapy became widespread in the 1980s, infant deaths due to respiratory distress syndrome have dropped by over two-thirds. Research supported by the March of Dimes and others continues to seek new, more effective therapies” {2}

Now a list of all the other major diseases/disabilities that animal testing has helped:

“Heart Disease/Stroke...Diabetes...Parkinson’s Disease...Hepatitis C...Bioterrorism Medical Countermeasures...Epilepsy...Spinal Cord Injuries...Cystic Fibrosis” {2}

All of those are extreme and some of them are deathly, but with the help of animal testing we are finding ways to help those struggling with these diseases.


I understand that animals have lives too, and that they also feel pain. I wish they would not have to feel the kind of pain they endure, but we are humans, not animals (We are referring to lab animals. So technically yes, but we are not lab animals.) . And I believe that the lives saved by this research on maybe a mouse or a rat is worth saving millions of human lives. Did you know that 1 million americans are dependant on insulin? But without animal testing, they would be insulin free… because they would be deceased. {4} I am now going to list what would happen if animal testing did not exist.

  • Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year.

  • Most of the nation's 1 million insulin-dependent diabetic individuals would not be insulin dependent – they would be dead.

  • Sixty million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication for high blood pressure.

  • Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70 percent of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.

  • More than 1 million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.

  • Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

  • The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs.

  • The 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.

  • There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease.

  • Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.

  • Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people killed by the disease.

  • Millions of dogs, cats and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies, and more than 200 other diseases now preventable because of animal research.

So millions and millions of people dying or a hundred animals dying per disease?

And you know what is funny, animal testing can save animals from zoonotic diseases as well! So everyone benefits. And do you know how many diseases are zoonotic?

“Many serious epidemic diseases are zoonoses which originated in animals. These include rabies, Ebola virus disease and influenza. In a systematic review of 1,415 pathogens known to infect humans, 61% were zoonotic”{5}

Animal testing helps all of us. And again, I wish we did not have to do such tests, but I would rather a mouse die than a person. We are humans and the most valuable lives in nature to us are other humans. And just think of how much good for the world it can do!


Thank you for accepting this debate and I look forward to your arguments!










Thank you DDD for beginning the debate.
As one reads the first set of arguments presented by my opponents (mostly copy and pasted), they will surely notice a great number of errors, generalizations and hypocrisy. However, as stated in the rules, I am not allowed to attack any of their points until my second round. By then, they will have presented 2 more points, which will make my task of rebuttal lengthier.

So that you, the reader can follow, I will be presenting my arguments in an organized fashion. Allow me to outline what you can expect from me over the next 4 rounds, as I attempt to prove that animal testing is bad.

I will be presenting just 1 argument/pillar per round. This will be followed with my conclusion, in round 5. My arguments/pillars are as follow:
1) Animal testing is unethical
2) Animal testing is unsafe
3) Better alternatives to animal testing exist

Lets begin:

1. Animal testing is unethical

The reality of animal testing is that annually, in labs across Canada and USA, millions of animals are subjected to torturous disease-ridden conditions, and an appalling amount die. Lets look at the numbers:

According to CCAC (the Canadian Council on Animal Care), in 2011, 3.3 million animals where used by testing institutions certified by CCAC. The annual report continues to state that 35% of these animals where used in experiments causing "severe pain near, at, or above tolerance threshold of anesthetized conscious animals". This means, over 1 million animals including, dog"s cats, and primate"s suffered/ died horribly without the use of any anesthesia.

The problem is, these are just the animals being tested under government-regulated conditions. In the USA, the AWA (Animal Welfare Act), seeks to protect and regulate the testing conditions of animals, much like CCAC. In 2010, only 5% of all animals used for testing were regulated under the AWA. More appalling still, organization PETA says "over 100 million animals"including mice, rats, dogs cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish and birds are killed in U.S. laboratories each year".

Currently, most countries punish their citizens for abuse of animals under the scientific understanding that animals can experience pain and suffering. In fact, England and Germany have enacted laws pertaining to the mistreatment of fish using this same understanding.

When looking at the last few paragraphs, two undisputable truths emerge:
1) Animals experience pain
2) Millions of animals experience pain/die because of animals testing, yearly.

This brings us to the fundamental question: is this animal suffering ethically acceptable?

Later in the debate I will present my 2nd argument, explaining how animal testing does not save lives. But, for the sake of this particular moral argument, lets say it does.

As individuals, our code of ethics is created/influenced by various factors, including:
1) Our legal beliefs
2) Our spiritual beliefs (for some)
3) Our individual experiential beliefs

The answer in all 3 cases argues against the use of animal testing. Legally speaking, we know that the mistreatment of animals is a punishable, jail-inducing crime. Spiritually speaking we know that Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist texts all speak against the violence of animals. Finally, we know through individual experiences that harming animals is wrong, even for the benefit of others. How do we know this? Well, I will ask you: Could you harm, mutilate or kill your own dog?

It must be understood then, that the practice of Animal testing is undisputedly unethical.

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to DDD"s response.
Debate Round No. 2




“As one reads the first set of arguments presented by my opponents (mostly copy and pasted), they will surely notice a great number of errors, generalizations and hypocrisy.”

I will already start my rebuttal, towards your intro. My opponent states that my arguments were mostly copied and pasted, with a negative tone. May I ask what is wrong about copy and pasting some something that helps your argument?. Is it plagiarism? No.

“Animal testing is unethical” (the short statement at the beginning of the point)

Fair enough, but think of it this way. What is worth more: The life of a human being? Or a mouse? Not only is it more ethical to save the human life, but the life of a mouse will allow us humans to test drugs (By drugs I mean medical drugs, not recreational type.) No drug, and I mean NO DRUG WHATSOEVER would be allowed without medical testing, And since we are on this topic, I would prefer to test on a mouse than a HUMAN.

“The reality of animal testing is that annually, in labs across Canada and USA, millions of animals are subjected to torturous disease-ridden conditions, and an appalling amount die. Lets look at the numbers:

According to CCAC (the Canadian Council on Animal Care), in 2011, 3.3 million animals where used by testing institutions certified by CCAC. The annual report continues to state that 35% of these animals where used in experiments causing "severe pain near, at, or above tolerance threshold of anesthetized conscious animals". This means, over 1 million animals including, dog"s cats, and primate"s suffered/ died horribly without the use of any anesthesia.”

I will break this down in multiple parts:

  1. I would like to show you how many lives of humans have been saved. Starting with one animal tested that has saved millions of humans. Penicillin.

“would not have saved countless Allied lives, during and after D-Day. Instead of having enjoyed fifty and more years of the antibiotic age, it is argued here, that we would have had to rely upon highly developed sulphonamides, so-called “super sulfas”, and other chemically-derived antibacterial drugs. Indeed, it might be the case that, even well into this new millennium, the antibiotic age has yet to dawn, and medicine is still waiting for someone to chance upon penicillin. Here we discuss what might have happened had Flemming not discovered penicillin and come to the conclusion that the medical armoury available today would have been far different and might have relied solely upon highly developed varieties of sulphonamides or similar, synthetic, non-antibiotic antibacterial agents.” {1}

“This simple animal test led directly to the saving of literally millions of lives, both human and animal.” {2}

So already we have at least, if not more, people and animals that have been saved by only one animal testing case than animals died in all of animal testing. If my opponent wants more examples, please tell me next round.

  1. How do you know that they suffered without anesthesia?

“1) Animals experience pain

2) Millions of animals experience pain/die because of animals testing, yearly.

This brings us to the fundamental question: is this animal suffering ethically acceptable?”

  1. So do humans.

  2. hundred’s of millions of people would experience pain/die if there was no animal testing. Yearly.

  3. For the sake of human lives, then yes. You are making a binary arguments without any nuance. Our technology is not advanced enough to simulate the many diseases that plague the world. Again, what is worse? A mouse with diabetes or your own child with diabetes?

“Well, I will ask you: Could you harm, mutilate or kill your own dog?”

If it were to save millions of humans and animals, then yes I think everyone would. Also, there are WAY more rats and mice used than cats and dogs.

“Approximately 95 percent of all lab animals are specially-bred rats and mice. Non-human primates account for less than one-fourth of 1 percent; dogs and cats combined, less than one-half of 1 percent. The balance includes rabbits, guinea pigs, woodchucks, pigs, sheep, armadillos, leeches, zebra fish, squid, horseshoe crabs, sea snails and fruit flies.” {3}



Remember, drugs are made up of several thousands of compounds, some could be dangerous to us humans. Also, some compounds that are safe by themselves may be dangerous by mixed with other compounds. Sometimes scientists may not be able to detect these problems, so before human trials begin, they will get a head start on fixing these problems. Now, animals may react differently to humans, but many will react very closely/identically to humans.

Most people deal with the cold and the flu with medicine, however, what if the medicine did not work or made things worse? What if it was untested?

You see, the truth is that we have to test on animals. Why?

If we didn’t test it, we might be selling a highly dangerous or even deadly drug to people. We could be selling liquid/solid poison.

For the last time. A human, or a mouse? Your child or a rat? Think about it.


I would like to share something and, as the argument title says, “put thing into perspective.”

Did you know that we eat over 159 million cattle, pigs, sheep, and chickens a year. {4}

But look at this: “we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research, and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal.” {4}

That itself is enough proof that if we put it in perspective, we are barely even using, not killing, using, a extremely small amount of animals that we use daily.

But, that’s not all. These animals have saved hundreds of millions of animals and humans lives. Just look at my rebuttal.


Once more, thanks.








I began writing with the intention of posting both my rebuttal (to all four of my opponents arguments) and presenting my 2nd of 3 arguments. However, due to the length of my rebuttal, I do not want to convolute this post with additional information. Therefore I will include my 2nd argument in my next posting, alongside my 3rd.


My opponent"s arguments (pillars):

1) Animal testing helps treat/ cure diseases.

Firstly, this assertion ignores that there are alternative forms of testing which can greatly treat/ cure these same diseases without the unwanted death of animals and humans caused by animal testing.
Secondly, my opponents have listed at length the graphic symptoms of Cancer, HIV and "baby defects" (what?). This sort of sensationalism attacks the maturity and objectivity of you, reader/voter.

2) Without animal testing, people would suffer. (This is essentially the exact same argument, just worded differently)

My only additional response to this claim, is by way of comparison. Lets look at airplanes. Lets say that 3000 people travel every day from L.A. to Vancouver via airplanes. My opponents state that if these airplanes did not exist, 3000 people would not be able to travel from L.A. to Vancouver. This is simply not true, we know that alternative methods of transportation exist, like busses and trains and boats. Just because airplanes exist, doesn"t negate other methods travel. Therefore, because many individuals use methods of animal testing for their health, obviously we cannot assume that without animal testing, they would simply suffer or die! This is a glaring logical fallacy.

3) Without animal testing, drugs could be dangerous for humans.

Again, this assumes that there are no alternative methods of testing. Additionally my opponents admit even animals "may react differently to (than) humans". This is actually quite a serious problem, as I will elaborate on in my own argument #2.
Also, it is worth noting that my opponent"s argument #3 has no statistical evidence supporting its claim. It is simply an assertion without any provided proof.

4) "Putting thing(s) into perspective".

Firstly my opponents state that we eat 160 million animals a year. They are trying to prove a double standard in regards to the treatment of animals. This argument is completely invalid because, I also believe that the consumption of animals as food is similarly unethical.

One other note- My opponent asked "what is wrong with copy an pasting something that helps your argument?"
I want to answer sensitively. I meant no personal offence by pointing out that most of your arguments are copy pasted from the Internet. Just that, this means these are largely not your own arguments, and this detracts from the originality that is essential to debate.
Debate Round No. 3


So I have fallen sick, and I have talked to my opponent and we both agree that when I feel better we will continue.



Joshianere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4



Don't vote please.


Joshianere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by StarHunter 2 years ago
Cool this is a great topic for debate. So much can be said for and against animal testing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.