The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 89637
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Animal testing is wrong and needs to be put to an end. It is only killing innocent animals while getting us nowhere in finding cures and vaccines. You're ignorant if you think otherwise. "Humans are the only hunters that kill when they aren't hungry."


I thank my opponent for the challenge. This round I shall be working on my opening arguments only.

Contention 1: Utilitarianism

For this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. I will concede to the fact that animals are Sentient beings, but something we should focus on is the Greatest number portion. Before we dive into that I would like to point out a key argument that Mill makes and that is humans have priority over animals concidereing that humans can expierence a greater amount of pleasure and a better potential in this case. [1]

Now as we begin here I have to prove that through Animal Testing we would be providing the Greatest Utility in this case and henceforth win the debate on these grounds, because if the ultamate utility isn't achieved then we will have more pain than pleasure and thus harming humanity which will ultamately lead to our downfall and depletion of human progress. First let's look at the benefits that these animal tests have provided humans. If we can look at the past 100 years we can see that almost all of the medical break throughs have actually came directly from Animal tests. [2] There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012. [3] There's also progress and come close to vaccines and treatments on a long chain of other illnesses it has helped with that I don't have time to go into detail with them all, but to list a few: Hep B, Hep C, polio, Brain Injuries, Breast Cancer, TB, Leukemia, Cardic Valve Subsitutes, and several others. [4][5]

Let's move on to animals and how they actually benefit from this. Now I would like to clarify to the voters here. I'm not the anti-PETA guy who thinks that we should put lipstick on a bunny to see if it makes it bullet proof, but more of a reasonable expierements over these vacines and such. First we have to look at some of the cures that actually came from testing on animals and the animal diseases that had vacines for them. There has been a countless list, but just to name a few: Rabbies, CPV, Feline Hep, Distemper, Antrax, and Feline Leukemia. [2] We can see that in this case countless millions upon millions of animals lives would have been lost if it wasn't for animal testing. As for the number of research subjects it is just over 26 million total. We consume more than 1800 more animals than test subjects. [6] We cannot deem this unethical without attacking eating meat amongst other things.

Now we can see that overal more humans and animals have been saved than those animals who have lost their lives and in current use. This is important when weighing this argument as we can see that this plan creates a net benefit of pleasure while my opponent's plan would be that of a net pain and shouldn't be ennacted as her position not only harms society and ends the golden age of medical research, but it kills humans of which we could have saved through animal research.

Contention 2: Ethic of Care

This will be another key argument as in this contention will I not only show that animals get better treatment than the PETA narrative paints, but will show that animal testing is necessary for the Ethic of Care.

The Ethic of Care argument is dependent of that of one's relationships and whether they entered upon it voluntarially. We can see that there may be a relationship between a human and an animal, BUT we must apply an offshoot of ecofeminism. Here we can see that humanity must preserve our society and better it for our future generations. Our future generations are that of the next immidate generation here. [7] Most of these relationships are actually maternal and for that we have to think of the future generations of which not only would we be saving more animals in the future, but more animals. It is for this great fact that we still need animal testing in order to protect the unborn and save them from these diseases. Some PETA activists may claim the same naritive that Brian Griffin did in Family Guy of which they put lipstick on a bunny to see if it's bullet proof. (video provided for humor) That's an absurd and an incorrect narrative as we can see that this industry is heavily regulated by the US Federal Government. According to the Animal Welfare Act Passed in the mid 1960's animals had to be provided with adiquete housing, food, water, way to use the bathroom, receive regular check-ups from vets, and all research testing has to be approved by a Congressional Committe in order for it to go forward. [8] Believe it or not, but they get play breaks, their choice of toys, and relaxation for several hours a day, so countrary to belief they aren't just used all day and night with end, but are in a good condition and relitively happy about their status. [9]

When we look at this situation we can see that animals are the perfect fit here as humans are out of the question. We have to see that many mammals are key in this research as they have similiar builds to humans like how certain monkey's share 99% of Human DNA and their similiarities can help cure key diseases and solve key medical issues. [10] These testings must continue or we might suffer another Thalidomide Tragedy where a sleeping and pain killer pill lead to people having to amputate limbs. [11] This issue shows us that we need to push for more animal testing not less. This is needed to prevent more tragedies like this one from happening.

We can see that this is another very important argument here as we can see that if we do not continue this animal testing we will be violating our relationship with our future generations and harming them by killing them before they are even born. We must preserving our future generations and our relations for the safety and stability of our soceity and the human race.

With that I will pass things off to my opponent.

1. (
2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
3. National Academy of Sciences, "Report Calls for New Directions, Innovative Approaches in Testing Chemicals for Toxicity to Humans,", June 12, 2007
4., "Diseases & Research," (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
5. Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing,", July 17, 2013
6. Tom Holder, "Animal Research Is an Ethical and Vital Tool to Fight Disease,", Jan. 14, 2013
7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286
8. (
9. Americans for Medical Progress, "Touring an Animal Research Facility,", Oct. 21, 2008
10. David Wright, Cole Kazdin, and Lauren Effron, "'Zoobiquity': 7 Diseases Animals Share with Humans,", June 12, 2012
11. (
Debate Round No. 1


I agree that animal testing has provided valuable information in finding vaccines and saving thousands of lives. However, animals should not be the cost of us trying to find cures/vaccines for HUMAN diseases. Animals were not put on this earth to be poked and prodded with needles at the sake of scientific advancements. Some are here to be companions to humans while others are to roam among the wild.

"Humans are the only hunters who kill when not hungry." -Steven Spielberg.

Right this very moment there are chimps being tested for HIV, but ironically enough, they can't acquire HIV. There is only one monkey who has ever died from AIDS, Jerom, and it was only because he was injected with three different strains of the virus which ultimately created a hybrid strain. Some people argue that "animals don't have feelings," but just because they can't talk to tell you that they're in pain, doesn't mean that they aren't. Animals can become happy, sad, depressed, etc. In his final months that Jerom was alive, he became severely depressed and frustrated. His "keepers" say that they would see him sobbing quietly and would even curl up in a fetal position to comfort himself. Does that sound like an animal that doesn't have feelings?

Rodents are almost always the ones used in research, however, rodents are only 37% effective in determining the cause of cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. An example would be the drug Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. It was found to be safe in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks/strokes and about 140,000 deaths worldwide. So not only did the drug cost thousands of animal lives, but nearly a half of a million humans were impacted, and not for the better.

If scientists want to find a cure/vaccine for human diseases, they should use willing HUMANS to find it, not poor helpless animals. I know animals can't talk, but I guarantee that is they could, they would be begging for freedom, pleading to be let out of the cages and released into their natural habitat.

Despite what you might think, there are alternatives to animal testing. One that is catching the eyes of pharmaceutical companies is a device called "organ-on-a-chip." It's a microchip lined with human cells through which air, nutrients, blood, and infection-causing bacteria could be pumped. They are meant to mimic the function of human organs, which will be a huge scientific advancement. Not only can it eradicate animals from being tested on, but it will provide more precise and accurate information as to what happens to the human body after being injected with a potential drug. It's more accurate because it's using human cells and not animal cells. No more playing the guessing game when it comes to determining what will happen to the human body when given a drug. This alternative costs a lot less and will take a couple days to a few weeks for results, opposed to the months-years it takes for testing animals.

1. "Cruelty Free International." Cruelty Free International. Publisher. n.d. Web. 19 November. 2015.
2. Burrell, Teal. "Can We Eliminate Animals from Medical Research?" PBS. PBS, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
3. Moxley, Angela. "The End of Animal Testing." The Humane Society of the United States, 2010.


My opponent has ignored my first contention on Utilitarianism. With the fact that animal testing increases the amount of pleasure for all sentient beings as this has this takes into account all of the animals and humans combined. Both sides have benefited completely and even if a few animals die, it is justified as it increases the pleasure for all Sentient beings. Notice that the difference between Sentient and humans. This takes into affect that animals are beings helped in this testing as they have recieved a huge amount of benefits. DUe to that. It wouldn't regard the injury that would occur as Animal Testing would be just.

My opponent brings-up that chimps cannot attrack AIDs, but this is not true as recent studies have found that they ARE able to attract these dieseases. [1] As for the "success rate" argument, we can see that my opponent is only selecting small areas from the testing process. We can see that at the end we arrive at an 83% chance of a success rate which is a great deal higher than the numbers that my opponent is stating.


My opponent brings up alternatives of these computer chip organs. There is little to zero chance of these likeness as when looking at comparison to a living being to where we need to observe key things like the effects on the nervious system and immune system. [2] If we created a drug without going through living beings testings then we are more likely than not to come up with another Thalidomide Tragedy which we need to avoid here. Another key thing we have to look at is the effect on the human organs. How the drug or cosmetic effects blood flow or other blood factors are extremely key to look at and if we use simple tissue we would be over-looking this fact? [3]

1. (
2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," (accessed Oct. 15, 2013
3. Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report,", Sep. 17, 2007
Debate Round No. 2


Utilitarianism- whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. In this case, the actions taken on animals being tested are morally wrong, not only because innocent animal are being tortured, but because the results taken from the animals can't be guaranteed to be the same in humans.

"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
-Arthur Schopenhauer.

Animal testing is not only bad science, but it's wasteful and archaic. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests Fail in humans. Animal experiments prolongs the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. The world doesn't need another eyeliner or mascara.

"The time that a mouse lives"which is about two or three years"is about seventy years less than it requires a human to develop some of these disorders," says Dr. Christopher Austin, director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Austin says researchers try to manipulate mutations to make their effects even more severe, but "because you have to speed it up to make it happen much faster, you think maybe it"s not terribly surprising it would not be predictive."
A neurologically complex disease like schizophrenia is hard to model in an animal in the first place"you can"t ask a mouse questions, after all"so testing if a drug reduces symptoms is even more difficult.

"The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?" -Jeremy Bentham

Another study examined six drugs which were already known to cause certain side effects in humans. The study determined that animals correctly predicted 22 side effects, but incorrectly identified 48 side effects that did not occur in humans, and missed 20 side effects that did occur in humans. This means that the animal models were incorrect 68 out of 90 times (76% of the time).

My opponent says that organs-on-a-chip won't work because it can't predict what the human nervous and immune systems will do, but neither can animals. Animal tests can never be 100% accurate because we have different anatomy and biochemistry.

Organs-on-a-chip will tell us what happens to our organs when given a drug. What we should do then is take the drugs that don't do harm to the organs and give them to Willing humans and see how it reacts to their immune and nervous systems.

"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." -C.S. Lewis.



My opponent wrongly defines Utilitarianism, but I have correctly defined it from JS Mill in my opening arguments. We can see that since Animal Testing maxes out the ultamate utility in the issue we can see that it is indeed a just action as more Sentient Beings derive a greater pleasure from this than not. So even if a few animals die in the process it is justified.

My opponent has taken the generic statistics out of context when they reported that 92 out of 100 fail. Though this is not true, as it is really that 94% that make it out of testing works with humans [1]. Where my opponent had actually taken the numbers out of context was taking testing results from Phase 3 specifically and comparing it with 19 tests (1.2/19.4=6.2%) which would translate into a 93% failure rate. Now taken out of context we can see that applied to this entire thing makes it seem terrible, but the fact is really the opposite as it is simply that the rate is extremely higher than that and when it is made out of animal testing we can see a 94% success rate [1]. My opponent brings up what they think is a failure rate, but that is simply the failure to predict all of those sideeffects and if you observe much of my opponent's sources you'll see that they are from PETA which has been nutorious at twistsing stats and this is obviously seen as my opponent's side affect argument was from a select group of failed expierements. These stats should be thrown out of the debate.

My opponent doesn't refute my rebuttals on the Organ chip, but instead throws up a Red Herring, stating that animal testing doesn't do this, what? The point is my opponent has dropped this argument and even if animal testing isn't 100% perfect we can still see that it has a better effect as it has the entire system to interact with eachother while the organ-chip cannot produce the same effect. My opponent has completely dropped my argument on how all of the animals benefitted from animal testing do to a series of animal diseases being cured.

With that I thank you and please vote Pro!

1. (
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 6 months ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: