The Instigator
Victor_syko
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Forthelulz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Animal testing does more good than harm

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 6/2/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 76117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Victor_syko

Con

Animals are not meant to be tested on. They weren't created for us humans to barge in an take control over. Animals were not bred to take part in a potentially dangerous experiment for humans' makeups, fashions, or tests. Heck, tests that are relating to humans aren't even the same when it comes to the question if it works on humans or not!

I'm not one of those crazy animal activists, but I can say that if we want to advance our technology or products, testing on animals isn't the way to go.

This is a clean debate, 1st and 2nd round for laying out arguments and the 3rd for refutations and ending arguments. I realize that this is a hard topic to argue, but be advised that I have many arguments and refutations to any argument.
Forthelulz

Pro

To start,

http://www.debate.org...

I believe that animal testing should continue on the grounds that it's easier to test chemical compounds and whatnot on a living thing. Because I care about my fellow man more than I care about some animal, I'd rather the the guys testing the animal discover the nasty side-effects and have them dealt with than have the guy develop the side-effects and suffer for it under the same people.
Debate Round No. 1
Victor_syko

Con

It is more than true to say that animal testing is dangerous. However, let's think about it this way. According to a study done by the magazine Popular Science, more than 88.7% of tests that were successful or unaffective by animal patients had the opposite or "different" effect on humans. Still not convinced? Doing their own research, The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This clearly proves that what we test on animals are completely innacurate and thereby should not be used. So in this sense, I, myself care for my fellow man as well.

Oh and thank you for clearing away that "personal" or sentimental part of this debate because I wasn't going to go much on about animal rights and whatnot. However, I'd like to give the voters this:

Correct science is the most humane and safe. Correct science is science used for good and not on those who don't have the ability to say what's right or not. We cannot keep on experimenting on animals that are taken away without notice, to be used for study, or for something that does not benefit their species. How far are we willing to take animal testing as to taking away the whole animal race for our cruel and incorrect tests.

(Note: I'm not those crazy animal activists whose working Peta or some crazy organization like that.)
Forthelulz

Pro

Given that people are going to be subjected to those compounds anyway, it is better to test it on an animal first, in case of any major side effects. After that, it could be tested on political prisoners in China, for instance. Animal testing provides a barrier between people and the really nasty things. It's not perfect, but until a suitable alternative is found, it's the best that can be done. Assume a zero-sum equation. We, as humans, want as much of that metaphorical pie that is resources as possible. Animals are eating up resources. We can either kill and eat them, use them as test animals, get power jollies by exercising power over them (http://www.debate.org...), or take them in as pets. The shorter lifecycle of the animals means that effects come to the fore more quickly than with humans, and corrections can be made.

In short, animals are highly expendable and do not even factor into the equation, unless they are in limited supply. Using them as a barrier helps identify side-effects and whatnot before moving over to political prisoner testing, then dissemination into the general public. It may not be reliable, but it's better than nothing.
Debate Round No. 2
Victor_syko

Con

Victor_syko forfeited this round.
Forthelulz

Pro

I thought you were a good kid. You actually showed up for round 2. Then you left. Please tell me it was RL issues.
Guys, don't ding him for conduct, if you vote.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.