The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Animal testing does more harm than good

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  
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: 11/6/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 367 times Debate No: 82173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth my premise which is that animal testing does more harm than good. My ensuing roadmap will include first defining this debate, then framing it and finally divulging 3 of my own points. What is animal testing? Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Harm means something that is unethical or immoral. Good mean beneficial or helpful. So this debate would mean that experimentation on animals has more wrongs than benefits. I would like to frame this debate to medical uses of animals testing only. So now please allow me to divulge 3 of my own points:

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, 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.


First I'd like to point out that human advances in science, biology and technology would not be possible without tests being conducted. Experiments are one of the essential parts of the scientific procedure, and is the framework of research. It basically confirms whether or not a hypothesis is valid and determines the path to scientific success. If humans did not conduct experiments, we would be centuries away from where we are now. It would be impossible to prove and confirm data or even to obtain it. Yes, these are the traits of experiments in general, but considering the developments in health, medicine and other sciences of biology, it would be necessary to conduct tests on lower organisms, before it is transferred to humans. What else would we test on? Some biological animal systems react differently to products than humans, but does that mean my opponent is suggesting that we test experiments on humans? Yes, their is some animal cruelty in some animal experimentation's, however; experimenting on humans would be even more cruel. That would be even more inhumane and even more expensive not to mention preposterous. My opponent says that the government is "wasting" its money on animal testing, however; every penny, that they are using is one step closer to achieving success. All the money the government is using is worth it, whether they are experimenting on disease cures, limb transfers or organ replacements. Yes, some of these experiments are not successful, however; not everything is. All scientists can do is keep trying, with different strategies. Yes, this progress is slow, but even my opponent can admit in his/her sources, that even through the millions of dollars being spent, human advances are slowly obtaining its goals through animal experimentation. Testing on animals in order to obtain upgrades in health, makes these treatments humane, because it is helping the survival of human society.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello once again, this is Forever 23 and I am here to state that animals testing does more harm than good. My roadmap will include, first nullifying my opponents points and then restating 3 of my own points and finally adding another of the props points into the debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


Forever23 forfeited this round.


Yes, in some scenario's, animals will react differently to substances than humans, however; scientists study the traits that these animals hold, and they are usually able to counter these obsticles. Even if they cant, what other things can they test on? The idea of testing on models is utterly rediciculous. Models cant biologicially react to medicines or test vaccines that might be used. Even if they could, an actual organism would be much more accurate. My opponent says that living animals may mislead human research, however; models will mislead research even more. Humans and animals both have one thing in common; their alive. In some ways, humans and lab rats have similar biological traits, and because both are mammals, it is easier to test on them. We have so much of an abundance of these lab creatures, that we can use so many in our experiments, and in many cases they are successful!
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
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: persianimmortal// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I vote con. Lab produced animals that have a speedy reproduction rate are best for such experiments, in other words rats. They are the best subtitutes to any animal who's reproduction rate is slower and their maintenance is much more costly. Rats are therefore best test subjects to reflect the results of certain medications before it is consumed by humans. I vote Con

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does sufficiently address Con's arguments and what he found convincing, the voter cannot solely restate one side's arguments in order to produce a sufficient RFD. The voter needs to compare both cases, which requires analyzing Pro's case as well. The lack of that analysis makes this vote insufficient.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vane01 10 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources from con.