Animal testing should be banned.
Debate Rounds (3)
This is my first debate on this site and I haven't had many in real life, so I'm excited to see where this will lead me and find something out about the form used here. This debate includes testing for medical, cosmetics, psychological research on animal subjects.
I'm on the Con side of banning animal testing and here's why:
1. Animal testing is only used when other options aren't viable
2. People would suffer due to this policy
3. The animals used for these types of test are well treated and taken care of.
Go easy on me!
You argue that animal testing should not be banned. You also provided reasons that (although were formatted in an attractive numbered list) just aren't very good.
You stated that "Animal testing is only used when other options aren't viable". What I struggle to comprehend is what other options are you talking about, for debate purposes I will make the assumption that you are referring to safe and controlled testing on humans. The only way such testing could be deemed "not viable" (at least from my perspective) is if the product being tested (cosmetics, medicine oretc.) is very obviously unsafe and could cause the test subject harm. You, then, believe that testing on animals should only be done when it is too dangerous for humans. What you fail to understand is that if something is too dangerous for a human then it is very obviously dangerous for animals as well. At this point I will ask you two questions: How can you justify an act done on an innocent animal that could cause it harm, just to avoid harm done to a human? Is your wellbeing more important than that of some poor animal? Your second point seems to overlook the fact that animals have rights just as we humans have rights. Animals should be treated fairly just as we treat humans, therefore your statement "humans would suffer due to this policy" seems selfish and out of place.
Finally you said that "the animals would be well treated and taken care of". No amount of "good treatment and care" would matter if a dangerous medicine were tested on, say, a cat and it died. Perhaps its tombstone would say: "She was a great cat. She died of an unproven medicine.... No matter, she was well treated and taken care of."
I apologize.. I may have gone a little hard on you..
Eagerly awaiting your response.
You stated that if the test is too dangerous for humans they will be too dangerous for animals, most of the drugs and treatments, that help save millions of lives every year have been tested on animals, without testing on animals these remedies would have never have been available for humans. In the UK only they introduced around 23 new drugs each year. The notion that humans are above animals, humans have morality, create social groups, have an interest and preferences about the world, we communicate. Some animals have the similar qualities, but they can"t reach the level of humans in any way so we can"t treat animals with the same value as humans. We can"t but a tiger on stand for murder if it kills a man, but we can but a human being in the courtroom for the exact same thing.
The animals used for testing are bred specially for this cause, there are no personal attachments, and these animals are designed for this job and most likely they wouldn"t survive in the wild. The animals that are used in these experiments in developed countries have great living conditions, which are better than the conditions of farm animals being raised for food. The animal aren"t being tortured and if there may be pain in the experiment is lowered to the absolute minimum, to be as humane as possible and these conditions are strictly regulated by laws.
AhmadSaaid forfeited this round.
JanariPa forfeited this round.
AhmadSaaid forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.