The Instigator
louigi
Con (against)
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Emilrose has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 133 times Debate No: 107817
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

louigi

Con

You will have a total 3 rounds to argue, and in the first round, you need to say that you accept the discussion. Font size should be 12 pt. You will be on the pro side to argue, and your time to argue is 3 days. The voting will last 10 days, and we will see who wins!
Emilrose

Pro

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
louigi

Con

Thank you.


The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief.

Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.

Emilrose

Pro

My opponent has copy/pasted the above segment from PETA's website: https://www.peta.org...;

Why I am Pro on Animal Testing

Firstly, if animals were not tested on, many forms medical treatment would not be available to humans as the research necessary would of course not have been conducted. It isn't merely medical products that are tested on animals (though, they would constitute the most important).

Virtually most of the artificially-constructed products that we use, have been tested on animals. One large source of animal testing is the beauty industry, so most mainstream cosmetic countries continue to test on animals - the ethics of this, I admit, are questionable. It's important to distinguish between animal testing done for the medical reasons and the benefit of mankind and animal testing that is done purely for superficial reasons. In regards to other products that are tested on animals - sadly, some of these are necessary. Chemical cleaning fluids are included within that bracket.

The case of more than 12 women being blinded in 1933 upon using a cleaining product that contained an untested chemical named p-phenylenediamine is an example of what can happen when animals are not tested on. Not so long after this incident (and this alludes to my point about drug saftey), an antibacterial medicine named 'Elixir Sulfanilamide', which was specifically made for children, was not tested and 107 people died as a result - the majority being minors.

Now, when drugs for humans are tested on, you have what is referred to as the 'pre-clinical trials', and this is when animals are used. If all appears well in these trials and no adverse effects are observed, the next stage is the 'clinical trials', with phases 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[1.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Naturally, if animals were not tested on in the pre-clinical trials, and the pre-clinical trials were removed, humans would be tested on first and this could potentially cause many deaths.

Although Con plagiarized his argument, I will respond to one point from it; which is that animals used in laboratories are not protected and are forced to endure pain. The 1988 Animal Welfare Enforcement Report by the Department of Agriculture found that '94% of all laboratory animals reported are not exposed to painful procedures or are given drugs to relieve any pain caused by a procedure' - meaning that the majority of tested animals are not subjected to continual pain.

[2.] https://www.nap.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
louigi

Con

Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee
Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee
Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee
Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee
Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee
Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Wr Yee



[1]https://www.youtube.com...
Emilrose

Pro

Well, Con has yet to make an actual argument.
Debate Round No. 3
louigi

Con

dude okay just shut up
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Emilrose 1 week ago
Emilrose
I'll take the 'ye' in that clip as a concession.
Posted by louigi 1 week ago
louigi
hm what?
ya faultfinder
Posted by Emilrose 1 week ago
Emilrose
Hm.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.