Animal testing does more harm than good
Debate Rounds (3)
First of all, animal testing may mislead researchers to ignore potential cures and treatments. Animal bodies are different than human bodies. They react to different medicine and are able to survive in different conditions. By using anima testing, scientists may ignore some potential cures because they did not cure the animal. According to Slate.com, Some chemicals that are harmful to animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results. This is quite significant because humans are not able to get more practical cures. As a result, many people are dying because scientists are using animal testing.
My second assertion is that it is cruel and inhumane. The question is, what happens to these animals in the lab? Well, here is the answer. Hundreds of experiments are performed on the. The animals, after they are used, meet a violent death. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment.The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. This is an important assertion since we would never do this to our own species. Animals are our younger brothers and deserve to be treated with compassion. As a result, with animal testing, we are forgetting our moral compass. We are forgetting to take good care of animals. Would you ever subject your pet to such pain?
My third and final assertion is that animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Many of these tests are much more expensive than their alternative. Millions of government dollars are flying to animal testing. This money should be spend much more carefully and toward a much better cause.Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300. A "rat uterotrophic assay" costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200. A two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research. This is a valuable argument because this money could go to a much better cause. The millions of dollars spent on animal testing could be used for stopping world hunger. As a result, we are not spending our money well. Many world wide problems could be solved with money saved by stopping animal testing.
Please vote proposition if you do not believe in cruel treatment to animals.
My opponents first points was that animal testing has helped in human advances in science, biology and technology. But I disagree, "Let's say that it's true, that animals were indispensable to the discovery of insulin," says Neal Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-protection group. "That was a long time ago. I think to say, 'It was done this way and there's no other way it could have been done' is a bit of a leap of faith, but let's say that at the time there was no other way." Currently, there may be many ways to achieve something in the field of medicine, but we are just ignoring it.
Their second assertion is that there is no other option. However, I disagree, there are so many. According to Medical Research Modernization Committee, data collected from animal experimentation are almost always redundant and unnecessary, frequently misleading, and by their very nature unlikely to provide reliable information about humans and their diseases. "Animal 'models' are, at best, analogous to human conditions," the authors wrote, "but no theory can be refuted or proved by analogy. Thus, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals." However, the computer models that help scientists are very accurate. They are a great alternative to animals testing.
Now let me restate my sides assertions:
1. Animal testing may mislead researchers to ignore potential cures and treatments.
2. It is cruel and inhumane.
3. Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars.
Now onto introducing a new assertion.
My fourth assertion is that animal testing creates a dangerous interpretation of the value of life. Allowing prospective determine value allows the human mind to justify killing and genetic mutation. What we do to animals is the laboratories is unethical and immoral. Everyday, the animals go through unimaginable pain. Then, they are brutally killed. We must protect the rights of animals, in order to ensure a good, healthy society.According to USDA, in 2006 about 670000 animals, not including rats and mice were used in procedures which included only momentary pain or distress. 420000 were used in procedures needing anesthesia. 84000 were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would never be relieved. Now, we are killing animals. Believe it or not, instead of animals, we will soon be using humans. By killing animals in the labs, we are implying that life has no meaning to us. It insinuates that murdering is fine and there will be no punishment for wasting the life of an animal.
Thank you, please vote proposition
zipper68 forfeited this round.
Forever23 forfeited this round.
My opponent also says that animal experimentation
My opponent says that it is cruel and imhumane to experiment on animals, however; the one thing that is cruel and inhumane is letting people die. It is inhumane not to try to stop cancer, ALS or to help amputee's, when we have the ability to do so. One of the most succesfull ways to do this is by scientifically testing our medicines on other creatures, so we dont end up accidentally giving wrong substances to humans. We need to know whether or not a medicine works or not, and if we arnt sure, scientists could un-intentienallty spread a medicine that doesnt even work or has negative side affects. My opponent also says that animal testing creates dangerous interpretations of the value life, and that it imply's that life has no meaning. If my opponent believes this is true, why is the intentions of animal experimentation to help the survival of human life? Yes, to most rational people, human lives are valued more than that of animals. Obviously animals do not have rights. That is simply stated. Thousands of years ago, humans conquered earth as the dominant species. Because animals can't think as rationally as humans, it is irrational to say that these creatures should have the same political and social abilities as humans. Yes, their is such a thing as animal abuse, however; animal experimentations do not hold that title. The reason why experimentations have been legalized is because it is a necessary factor for human health and advances in technology.
p.s sorry for the forfiet, things got stuck k
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vane01 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: No sources from con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.