The Instigator
anh090
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Pro (for)
Winning
28 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 4 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 64133
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

anh090

Con

Animal testing is terrible and honestly has to need anymore because of the new scientific discoveries and id like to prove my point. To stop the horrible testing done on animals
Defro

Pro

I accept this challenge.
Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
anh090

Con

People say that animal testing is okay because it helps us. But it doesn't really help us anymore. The inner workings of a rat and a human may be similar, but they are no means identical. When it comes to drug discovery and development, these limitations can jeopardize every segment of the pharmaceutical pipeline, from synthesis to prescription. Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has 8 percent chance of being approved form human use. Also, the ultimate crash test dummy has been invented by military scientists and will eventually replace live testing on animals such as pigs which are regularly blown up and dismembered in the search for more lethal mutations hundreds of scientists are making medicines from chemicals found in sea plants and animals. Once scientists find useful chemicals, they can often copy them in a lab without killing any animals. Plus,less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. According to the former scientific executive of Huntington Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5% of the time." Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
Defro

Pro


Before I proceed, it is necessary to define "animal testing."
According to Wikipedia, animal testing is: "The use of non-human animals in experiments." [1]


Con is under the impression that the goals of animal testing is solely to improve medicine and is solely in the best interests of humans. This is not true.



C1. Benefits for Animals and Environment

- Animal testing also helps animals. Animal testing is done not solely to improve medicine and health for humans, but for animals as well. I will give some examples:

- Animal testing must be done for Veterinarians and Animal Hospitals to properly understand animals so that they can help sick and injured animals.

- Pet food companies often perform animal testing by having pet animals eat a variety of pet foods to determine which are healthiest and tastiest, thus improving the quality of pet food, which is a benefit for both pet owners and their pets.

- Animal testing is also necessary to help preserve endangered animals. To help preserve an endangered species, you must know what they eat, what living conditions are comfortable for them, their predators, their behavior, why they are endangered, etc. To determine these factors, the animals must be tested. These tests don't hurt the animals. It could be as harmless as having a monkey eating two different types of bananas to determine which are better for it.

- In some cases, an endangered animal is a keystone species. A keystone species is a species of animal that plays a crucial role in its ecosystem. [2] If a keystone species goes extinct, the whole ecosystem collapses. For example, if a hummingbird goes extinct, the plants in its environment would not get pollinated, and after a few generations, all the plants in this environment dies out. Animal testing plays a crucial role in preserving endangered animals, which plays a crucial role in preserving the ecosystem and ultimately, the environment. Therefore, animal testing plays a crucial role in preserving the environment.



C2. Probability of Success

- One of Con's main arguments is that animal testing should be banned because there is a low probability of success. However, the probability of success is still there, and it won't hurt to keep trying. Thomas Edison tried thousands of times with a small probability for success, and made a scientific breakthrough in the end that brought huge benefits to the world.





Conclusion:

While animal testing has a low probability of making medical breakthroughs, the probability is still there, and is certainly worth the failures, like Edison's failures that resulted in the breakthrough of light bulbs and electricity, which is responsible for the invention of the very computer you are using right now.

And aside from medical purposes, animal testing also plays a crucial role in helping animals which ultimately also helps the environment.




Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://education.nationalgeographic.com...







Debate Round No. 2
anh090

Con

Con: Animal Rights

By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely. According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures, and at least 10 percent of these do not receive painkillers. Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it. Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal. Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable.

Con: Expense

Animal testing is notoriously expensive, and also very time-consuming. According to Care2, scientific professionals in the U.S. have used approximately $20 million in taxpayer money on animal experiments that are deemed "arbitrary and pointless." Animal testing in general costs more than non-animal testing, since it requires additional lab equipment, such as animal food, cages and needles, and usually takes a lot more time. Animal activists argue that many animals experiments aren't necessary in the first place --- like testing cocaine on monkeys --- and don't contribute vital information to the scientific community.

Con: Necessity

Individuals in the scientific and animal rights community alike maintain that most experiments leading to life-saving scientific breakthroughs could have been done just as easily without using animals. Some scientists even believe that non-animal testing produces more accurate results than animal testing. Advances in stem cell research, for example, may well render animal testing pointless in the future. In addition, according to Living Cruelty Free, the safety of a product or procedure on an animal does not always translate over to human safety, due to "interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry." Lots of experiments performed using cosmetics and other household items are not necessary, because many popular companies do not test on animals. These companies are labeled "cruelty-free" by PETA.1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity:
In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity.
Function

Animal testing is used to see how a product could possible effect humans, animals and the environment. The different demands for animal testing come from the medical field, household products, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, paint, food additives and beauty products.

Types

There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical students

I have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong
Defro

Pro



Animal Testing: The use of non-human animals in experiments.

Experiment: a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something. [1]





Rebuttal:

"By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely."

- I'm sure they aren't treated "humanely", as they are not human.


- However there are many cases of animal testing also do not harm the animal and in fact benefits the animal.

- For example, currently the WWF organization are working hard to preserve Pandas, which are an endangered species. [2] To preserve the Pandas, they must learn more about Pandas. To do this, they must experiment on them. These experiments are generally harmless. For example, a scientist may measure and weigh several Pandas to determine which size and weight is healthy, so that they can spot out Pandas that are not healthy easier. Also, if a Panda is sick, veterinarians must experiment on the Panda to determine what is wrong with it and how to cure it, much like how a doctor would perform an x-ray scan on a broken bone to determine where the fracture is so he can accurately provide a diagnosis.


"According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures,"

- That is unfortunate, but why should we humans care about the pains felt by animals? We already butcher and slaughter them for food. They already suffer whether or not we test them. And we do this because food benefits us, just like animal testing may benefit us.


- Furthermore as I have shown, not all cases of animal testing result in the suffer of animals. Con's resolution is basically: "Animal testing is terrible and should be banned." My burden of proof is simply to show cases in which animal testing is not terrible and is actually necessary. I've met this burden by explaining how animal testing is necessary for the preservation of animals, which may also preserve the environment.


"Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it."

- Con has committed the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as the bandwagon fallacy. [3] Using an appeal to the masses does not validly support one's argument.



"Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal."

- It doesn't matter how much we or animals are worth. If those people truly feel like this, they would all be vegans/vegetarians, which I'm sure is unlikely. We eat because we benefit from it, not because we devalue animals. The same goes for animal testing.


- Animal testing has made huge medical breakthroughs in fighting breast cancer, Leukemia, HIV/AIDS, lung cancer, birth defects, diabetes, and the list goes on. [4] Those are the benefits we got from animal testing. Therefore, we don't do it because we devalue animals, but because it benefits us.


"Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable."

- It is important for judges to note that this entire sentence was plagiarized word for word from this website: http://www.ehow.com...


*In fact, the rest of Con's argument on "Expense" and "Necessity" has also been plagiarized from the same website. Because they are not Con's arguments, I refuse to address them. This is a clear conduct violation.



"There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical students

I have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong"


- Con did not provide a clear definition for animal testing in both round 1 and round 2. Therefore, I was allowed to provide a definition that Con must abide by. My definition of "Animal Testing" was: "The use of non-human animals in experiments."

- My examples of preserving animals and the environment require non-human animals to be used in experiments. Therefore, it is still valid in the boundaries of this debate and considered animal testing.






Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://wwf.panda.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.amprogress.org...

Debate Round No. 3
anh090

Con

anh090 forfeited this round.
Defro

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
anh090

Con

anh090 forfeited this round.
Defro

Pro

I don't have anything left to say.
I'll end it here.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Pro should win
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
anh090Defro
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
anh090Defro
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
anh090Defro
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Due to Con's considerable amount of forfeited rounds, committing a fallacy, and plagerism without acknowledgement or apology - Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
anh090Defro
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF ultimately cost Con this debate.