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

Animal testing should be ban in the us

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 281 times Debate No: 81244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures
According to the health association in 35000000 cases of polio are in 1981 and in 2014 233 cases are left because of animal testing. This shows the great decreases of cases of polio vaccine because of animal testing


Are you saying that 'The End always justifies the means'
Are you saying that if the U.S. did impose a ban that it would be left at an unfair global disadvantage? Is that your argument.

We are going to have to get to the nub of this question soon, with only 3 rounds.

My position is that there should never be testing on animals, even if it is within the context of animal health or conservation. I disagree with the domestication of animals for farming or labour.
I believe that animals should not be kept in Zoo's or as pets.

I believe that a creature has a 'validity' and an essence that should not be violated.

This is an absolute position that will never be practical in any real way. I just choose to have it, anyway.I believe that the fate of all mammalian life on this planet is already a done deal and that debate on this is 'just shooting the breeze'

If you are going to kill it for fun, then kill it. Just leave your gun at the Police Station and start with a lion.

If you are going to kill it to eat it, then do that. Allow the creature to live it's life as intended and kill it as effectively and as humanely as is possible. If the creature is a nuisance requiring a cull then use the same approach. Donate space to these creatures for their lifetimes. IMHO

We press home our advantage on fellow life forms and we have created a 'final solution' for these things.

Cosmetics or morality? It is your call.

If you want to do testing, then get sick people to try the stuff out. Find volunteers etc. Isn't it a fact that the global pharmacutical industry is just one big 'death camp' of torture and sadism. We don't see it but it is there. Do you consider that the suffering of mammals is subjectively different than the pain we experience as human mammals?. Why? Would you administer a toxin to a child. Would you use rat poison? Why?
Would you use weed-killer? Why? Where are you going to make your line here?

Human morality is a Menu if it ignores creatures like dogs, chimpanzees, rabbits, rats, etc. These creatures are mammals as we are. They nurture and love and protect as we do. So do many of our endangered species.

If we cannot discover a morality that encompasses the validity of these life forms then we will finish them off first and finally turn on ourselves. Negroes were conveniently regarded as animals for most of the slave trade. This justified their exclusion from any degrees of decent treatment. What if a chimpanzee or a gorilla was able to express itself via a computer language programme, What if it could recite it's own prayer or poem. Would we still stick 'bolts' in his head.?

This consideration is an absolute that will never be 'seriously considered' Make your point, but do not expect me to agree with it. Good Luck
Debate Round No. 1


mawada_sami forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


mawada_sami forfeited this round.


You vote and I win. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
Wrote it wrong. I meant "that debater" in place of "the voter"
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago

"When a debater forfeits every single round except the first, that voter certainly does not deserve 7 points."

That makes no sense at all . . .
Posted by zeromeansnothing 11 months ago
Thank You, whiteflame!
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
>Reported vote: themightyindividual// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro values human life less than that of a lower animal and therefore is wrong. He did not even provided logical explanations for his beliefs.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) When a debater forfeits every single round except the first, that voter certainly does not deserve 7 points. (2) The voter needs to do more than merely assert that one side is wrong on the basis of a single argument. It's not up to the voter to explain who's right and who's wrong. It's up to the debaters to argue rightness and wrongness. This voter hasn't explained how they have done so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture allowed Pro to win conduct and arguments since Con was unable to refute the arguments presented by Pro.