The Instigator
Jesspark1224
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
memechicken
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animal testing is unjustified.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jesspark1224
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 83336
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Jesspark1224

Pro

I believe that animal testing is unjustified because of the cruelty of these testings. Most of the animals ends up their lives by being injected unsafe medicines into their body, and only a few percentage of them get a 'special privilege' of being euthanized. For instance, 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. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010 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. Moreover, some of the 'endangered' species designated by the CITES are used for animal testing, just for fast results and inexpensive prices. It is high time for us to stop this unneccessary, crazy act in the globe.
memechicken

Con

OK I understand how you feel sad about how the animals are being treated badly and think that that is immoral, but it is justified. Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented? As well as the benefit to the human race animal testing provides research for other animal vaccines and medicines so that just further invalidates your stance, and one more thing do you have a better idea about how to test our new medicines and chemicals to make sure that they are safe for us and that includes you by the way.
Debate Round No. 1
Jesspark1224

Pro

OK, great argument. However, as the opponent has mentioned that ' Look at it this way would you rather it be a few guinea pigs and rabbits or your friends and family that die because of something that could have been prevented?', and also asked about the other ways we can test our new medicines, I would like to mention an alternative that would not harm neither human nor animals. First, the Episkin. The Episkin, a manmade skin developed in a science lab, is 99% same as a real human skin, while scientists can also control the dryness of this material, either. The reaction to new substances are not so quick as animals, but it is still highly potential if we think about the invaluable lives of animals. Second, the online experiment using computer programs. We are living in a developed, 'digital information era', which we can use this small and intelligent friend called 'computers'! Why we aren't using this program in the testing process? Just for the quick results and less prices. It is time for us to use 'advanced' computing programs and high-tech materials while testing instead of this inhumane animal-testing act.
memechicken

Con

Computers are well and good for something that can be predicted but when you are working with something new and unprecedented it is better to stick with something that you know will be 100 percent accurate, and as for Epsikin it has less than 10% of the natural proteins found in skin and even if it had 100 percent of them and functioned perfectly how would we be able to test the drugs effects on the other processes found in the body? The delay you mentioned might be irreversibly fatal and think of all the deaths that could have been prevented if you had just tested it on something with a pulse and in the process probably helped the animal that was tested and the future ones how about the risk of one for the betterment of the many. Plus with all the aforementioned benefits of animal testing money seems like the least of the reasons to continue using this method of testing.
Debate Round No. 2
Jesspark1224

Pro

OK, now I got your point about how this computing process is 'useful in predictable circumstances', but I believe you are making a big mistake. First of all, the proposal from the FDA read that 92% of medicines working on testing animals doesn't work on actual human body. Moreover, the US ministry of Agriculture has also mentioned that the diseases which human and animals share the curing method is just about a mere 5%. It is a fallacy to think that testing on living creatures are always the best effective way. Second, as aforementioned, I can provide you plenty of tragedies happened just because of the reliability to animal test results. Firstly, a thalidomide. Made by a German company on 1953, this sedative was selling like hot cakes with the ad 'no side effects to animal testings!' while the late 1950s and the early 1960s, until more than ten thosuands of malformed chidren was born from the pregnant women who took that medicine. On the other hand, a clioquinol, which was a medicine for diarrhea, made thousands of blind people, and led hundreds of them to heaven. Lastly, I would like to remind you that this debate isn't talking about whether the animal testing is economically effective or not; we are debating just about the morality of animal testing and how it is justified or not. So, fighting for the last rounds. :)
memechicken

Con

memechicken forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jesspark1224

Pro

Umm... I... think... that you have either missed the posting-argument deadline, or really gave up this debate...? (Did you gave up..? :O
Anyway, since I have nothing to rebut(Since you didn't post your argument), I'd just like to leave a burden that you'll have to answer in this 4th round. According to the Math/Science Magazine 'Newton', the probability of getting money for 3 consecutive times in a original roulette is 0.1%, while the probability of making a new vaccine from an animal testing is 0.016%. Do you really want to make these little creatures be tied in labs just with this low 'gambling'?
memechicken

Con

memechicken forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Jesspark1224

Pro

Jesspark1224 forfeited this round.
memechicken

Con

memechicken forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by raskuseal 1 year ago
raskuseal
Even though many people think animal testing is cruel, it is more then justified! And you know who made it illegal to test on animals? Adolf Hitler. When he rose to power, he made it extremely illegal to test on animals: problem was, they had Jews to test on instead of animals. I don't know about you, but I'd rather test something on a savage animal then a human being!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Jesspark1224memechickenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last 3 rounds.