The Instigator
Asylbek
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ice.jeremy
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Animal experimetation should be banned around the world

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 4 votes the winner is...
ice.jeremy
Started: 3/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,829 times Debate No: 31720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Asylbek

Pro

I am sure that animal testing should be banned around the world, because of the fact it is cruel oward animals. We may use them like a meal, but for the name of medicine we can not do tests on animals. I mean they have a chance to live. Thus, other arguments I will tell if you start to debate with me!!!
ice.jeremy

Con

Although animals are not as smart as people, but let's face it many people have benefited from the experimentation of animals to make some medicine to cure people; in this life we make sacrifices for the good of mankind as long as they don't use humans in experiments, that's what I'm only concerned about.
Debate Round No. 1
Asylbek

Pro

In fact, about one century ago scientists used humans for create something new, I mean Holocoust. Actually, Nazic people used on this experiments Jew people but it is another topic. Well, lets consider our issue which became as a global problem.
In my humble opinion, animals suffer from experiments extremely and it is so cruel toward animals. Moreover, activists emphasize that with a modern technologies animal testing is unnecessary because new era in a medicine may get the same results. In fact, doctors state that it is not just to give a mouse a tablet and see what is going to happen. Even scientists break their legs of animals and poison them while they are alive and so on. Thus, it is understandable that animals are victims of cruel life. For instance, paracetamol is helpful medicine for people but it may kill a several types of
animals.
ice.jeremy

Con

Holocaust isn't an experimentation on humans, the Nazi's committed genocide by killing lots of Jews. Now let's get back to the main reason why we are debating. Thanks to animal testing many lives had been saved because of the medicines that the scientist had created; if it wasn't for animal testing, there wouldn't still be a cure for some diseases that are fatal and deadly. If it wasn't for animal experimentation you wouldn't be thanking the doctors for saving your loved ones life because of illness.

Animal testing is an integral part of medical research, without which advancements and breakthroughs regarding treatment of critical diseases cannot be made. Moreover, testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life-threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection.

In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures, related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung disease treatments. You will be surprised to read that the anesthesia, which is used to numb the body during surgery today, was successfully tested on animals first. It was essential to test it on animals, so as to find out the effects on the body. How else could researchers find out more about anesthesia?

If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself.
Debate Round No. 2
Asylbek

Pro

I have already understood that medicine needs to be tested somehow before it can be used on humans, but with modern techniques is useless to use animals for that. For instance, nowadays scientists can clone an organ and safety test on that. In addition, I agree that animal testing has a big influence in medicine but I am sure that by the modern technologies we will receive the same result.
Moreover, if we look so deeper we may see that there are so many millennial generation around the world claim that modern technologies are much more expensive than animal testing. It indeed consumptions of monetary sum to changeover from old techniques to new ones, but eventually it will be deserving choice of reaching a reliable results in a medicine.
In fact, people who are against toward animal experimentation including me, we consider that modern technology is one time investment, while with animal testing you should keep paying for it. I have several arguments such as animals need food, shelter and transportation also need a money.
ice.jeremy

Con

In my opinion your argument is irrelevant to the topic, we're talking about the cruelty of people because of the act that they are using animals for experimentation; we can really say that the experimentation on modern technology is much more expensive than the expenses on the experimentation of animals to make medicines. I am now going to state my facts.

--Argument--

If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself.

Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing.

It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to work hand in hand, and prevent this injustice from happening. We should ensure that animal testing is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort to the animal as possible. If animal testing was to be outlawed, then there would be very little scope of obtaining vital information necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals.
Debate Round No. 3
Asylbek

Pro

Each person has own opinion and I disagree with you because everything which I have already written it has connection with the main topic called " Animal experimentation should be banned around the world" and I am trying to prove my point of view by several arguments. In fact, have only four rounds and I have to add everything on these a few rounds.
I support you that modern technologies are more expensive than animal testing, but I have just emphasized that it is one time investment while animal experimentation, you have to keep paying for it. Moreover, animals need to be breed, they need meal and so on. Yeah, I agree with you that your arguments are strong too but I am sure with a modern technologies we may receive the same result. Why? Because of the fact we want to avoid from cruel relationships with animals.
Now I want to tell about the brands which people use, exactly women prefer to use them in a daily life. If the cheaper product, the smaller chance it is tested on animals. All the big brands such as L"oreal, Maybaline and Max Factor and so on tested on animals. Otherwise, there are several brands that are test free such as Yves Rocher and Estee Lauder. And let"s face it, why should we pay for mascara that is just as good as that one of 5 euro"s??? Let"s consider it, why not economy 10 euro??? If we completely use animal testing, we will waste our money. As you remember, I have just emphasized that new techniques need only one time investment.
In conclusion, I believe you will consider about my arguments. As you know, the aim of my state is to prove that animal testing should be banned around the world. We just want to avoid from cruel relationships with animal. Yeah, I remember you have told about safe experiments on animals. Otherwise, if we completely use this type of testing, I am sure we will waste much money than only one investment with modern technologies. At the end, I want add that European Union wanted to enforce the ban on animal testing of cosmetics, enters into force on March. It means European Union is against too with animal experimentation.
Thanks for interesting debate. (Kazakhstan)
ice.jeremy

Con

Since this is the last round, I will now present all the facts that I can find and all the opinions I can say. Then again i would like to thank you for a wonderful debate, I really learned so much in our debate and I have also practice my English. I hope you will invite me again to another debate.

--Facts--

o Finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. There are already some lifesaving medical breakthroughs that are the result of animal testing, like open heart surgery, organ transplants, effective insulin, vaccines for deadly diseases, "

o It is the most accurate way to learn the effects of substances in a living body

o Ensuring the safety of drugs and other substances

o Human harm is reduced and human lives are saved but also animal lives are saved because of animal testing.

o Many of the medications and procedures that we currently use today wouldn"t exist and the development of future treatments would be extremely limited.

o Many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life.

o Using cell cultures can only reveal side effects on a molecular level and cannot unfortunately, reveal side effects like organ failure, rashes, tumors, or cardiac arrest like animal testing can.

o Using computer models cannot always predict unknown variables that can be discovered with animal testing.

o Animals may not have the exact same philology as humans but animal testing is accurate enough to test whether a substance is even safe enough for human trials.

Reference for the facts:
http://levmm1.wordpress.com...

--Argument--

Though many people wouldn't understand the importance of this experiment, it is good to know that there are people who are still pursuing this action; It is also given that animals are not different from us, they've also become our best friends, they become our family, they've comfort us in our times of loneliness and they even help those people that are trap in destroyed establishments.

People from this generation are not the one to be blame because of animal cruelty. The study on medicine started thousands of years ago even without the help of technology, people back then became curious and started experimenting on animals to find a cure for a poison, disease, and illness. If they wanted to stop animal experimentation they should've stopped thousands of years ago.

Now is not the right time to ban this experimentation, there are many people dying because of an unknown illness, there are many people dying because of unknown diseases, if we were to stop this experimentation, what do you think will happen to the people living in this world? after a few years without the scientist finding out a cure to treat diseases, do you think they will just settle swallowing a different type of drug that doesn't cure their disease? I guess not; All I'm saying is that, if this experiment didn't stop thousands of years ago, what makes you think it will stop now? now when the world has many people getting sick and it badly needs medicines. The main priority is to treat the disease and help it decrease.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Judy-Jang 10 months ago
Judy-Jang
Please delete this debate!!!!!
Or else you will have trouble!!!!
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
i saw peoples have mind set. if they see something done wrong by some individual they wanted to be removed it completely.
but i think always say the wrongfully experimenting animals.
like experiment the animals who are already sick and near to die
or experiment them which also give benefit to there race too.
these things.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
they do not experiment. but do wrongfull trade. they show they are doing experiment.
and they take the licence to hunt for that.
and they are allowed to sell the by products.
well its long.
see the show sea shepherd. the volunteer stopping them from doing this.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
dear see the who sea shepherd are. a discovery channel show.
than you will see what the Japanese doing.
killed 10000 whales
Posted by Nimbus328 1 year ago
Nimbus328
Perfume is a relatively minor example, pharmaceuticals would have been more to the point.
Posted by justin.graves 1 year ago
justin.graves
I have never heard of a whale being experimented on...
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
those who are near protect the poor creature.
indeed infornt of human almost every creature is poor./
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
esp the research on whales.
should be banned.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
Asylbekice.jeremyTied
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: There is plenty of evidence on the web about animal testing being necessary for life-saving drugs. Con should have done some research; his only reference was in the last round where new evidence doesn't count (because no rebuttal is possible). Still, Pro had the burden to prove that animal testing is not required, yet he did not have links to reputable sources supporting that claim. With Pro assertions against Cons, Pro loses for not providing proof.
Vote Placed by yuiru 1 year ago
yuiru
Asylbekice.jeremyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros position was extraordinary and pro did not supply proper evidence that all animal experimentation (would include testing with no harm or even benefit to the animal) should be banned.
Vote Placed by Nimbus328 1 year ago
Nimbus328
Asylbekice.jeremyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited a source, Pro did not. Perfume is a relatively minor example, pharmaceuticals would have been more to the point.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 1 year ago
jh1234l
Asylbekice.jeremyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made strong arguments on animal testing and also used 1 source, while pro used 0. Conduct to pro as con plagiarized his facts.