The Instigator
DebateChampion1
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ferare
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Animal testing should be banned.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ferare
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 78316
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

DebateChampion1

Pro

Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day"s work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop:

It"s unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.
It"s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.
It"s wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.
It"s archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests.
The world doesn"t need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals" lives.
Ferare

Con

While I think most people would agree that animal testing should be used to a lesser extent, and be performed as ethically as possible, that's not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a wholesale ban, regardless of the costs and benefits involved. I consider that irresponsible.

Certain animal experiments are almost demonstrably unethical, and sometimes even unnecessary. That can't be said about all animal experiments however. We can not do research into malaria if we don't keep mosquitoes. We need to analyze snake venom to create antidotes. You may argue these pursuits are unethical, but it's certainly up for debate.

I'm guessing the divisive issue is tests on mammals. I'm in no position to disprove all the biologists, doctors and pharmacists who claim animal testing is viable and useful, and the burden of proof is certainly on any person who wants to make such a claim. Humans are mammals, our muscles and digestive systems are often quite similar as well as our endocrine systems. In my opinion, the breakthroughs that rest on animal experiments speak for themselves. If there are better and cheaper ways, we will surely adopt those instead. People did not enter science because they are sadists.

A complete ban on animal testing is not a viable approach, surely plenty of diabetics who are alive because of it would agree. I'm not sure it would have been more ethical to learn how to do kidney transplants or how to place the first pacemakers on humans.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateChampion1

Pro

1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25% of the time."
3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they"re useless, dangerous or both.
5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans " less use than guessing. The experimenters said: "we would have been better off to have tossed a coin."
8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.
9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
11) 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
12) Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
13) Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
14) Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
15) GM animal the CF- mouse never gets fluid infections in the lungs " the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
16) In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
17) Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalised by medical treatment.
18) In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
19) In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
20) A German doctors" congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
21) According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
22) 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
23) 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
24) 78% of foetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
25) Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals " including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
26) One of the most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
27) The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon"humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia."
28) Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer drugs, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection were believed.
29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
30) The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
31) 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
32) Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."
Ferare

Con

It's highly unclear what you are trying to say with this list. Points 1-5, 7,8, 10-13, 15-24 seem to all relate to either drugs being bad for humans, or the animal subject not being optimal for the test in question. I would agree medications, especially strong medication, is dangerous but that's beside the point. And people overdose, mix medications with other medications or alcohol and so on, surely that is a contributing factor to the number of deaths. That is also completely unrelated to animal testing. And in the cases where the animal testing was not effective, that's not a reason to ban testing in the instances where it in fact is needed.

Regarding item six, I would like a source. I would think this survey asked more specific questions than "if animal experiments had relevance to human patients". If not, these doctors are quite frankly idiots. How could you give someone a bovine heart valve without first testing if it worked. As I said in my previous post, insulin was invented entirely by tests on dogs (http://www.nobelprize.org...). That certainly has relevance to human patients.

Item nine and fourteen puzzled me, is it there to show certain animal tests are unpredictable? If so, see paragraph one. If it's an ethical issue, that's certainly something that could be changed without banning all animal testing.

For items 26, 29, 30, 31 are in special need of sourcing, but virtually all of these require background reading. Preferably peer-reviewed.

Item 27 and 28 are not relevant. As a matter of fact we have those medications, so obviously that's not the case.

Regarding item 32, 45% of what, Nobel prize recipients? Regardless, if 45% of any group think animal tests are crucial for their work it seems rash to ban it.

I don't see the relevance in your last point, obviously some progress could be made. The question is, would it be more or less? You even said, in your initial statement, that we could miss out on pesticides and medications if we banned animal testing.

I'm in an advantageous position, since you are arguing for an extreme. The alternative to banning animal testing is not to make it mandatory, or to base our every decision on its outcome. All I have to do is find one instance of animal testing where the gain outweighs the cost, morally and practically, and I have won. I will claim the invention of insulin was worth the suffering of those poor dogs in the 19'th century. I will also claim it was worth subjecting mice and rabbits to whopping cough, in order to create a vaccine against that terrible illness that killed so many infants and elderly. I will claim pacemakers and prosthetic limbs were worth the suffering of the large mammals they were first tested on.(http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...) Now it's up to you to tell me why I'm incorrect.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateChampion1

Pro

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested.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. The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. In Mar. 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) found 338 possible violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana. Some of the primates housed at NIRC were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, "tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs." Video footage shows infant chimps screaming as they are forcibly removed from their mothers, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. In a 2011 incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee.Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast..." The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals.
Ferare

Con

I don't feel the need to argue any further, you have yet to produce any sources for your claims or meet any of my arguments. I therefore recuse my opportunity to counter.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateChampion1

Pro

dont mind but ur r kind of i mean so weird?!?!?! sorry but dont mind
Ferare

Con

It's not my intention to be mean at all, but since a debate never evolved, I had nothing to add. Sorry.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by joetheripper117 1 year ago
joetheripper117
DebateChampion1FerareTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that animal testing helped at one point, thus showing that animal testing should not be completely banned.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
DebateChampion1FerareTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro instead of Con, because con outright refused to participate in the debate at round 3. Con clearly had the more reliable sources, because he backed up his claims with those sources while Pro did not back up his sources with anything despite Con requesting him to do so. More convincing arguments goes to Con. This is because Pro had to prove all animal testing should be banned, and he did not do that. He asserted (Without evidence) that animal testing is not helpful in many cases, but that does not prove that no animal testing should be done. Con proved that some animal testing has greatly helped us advance medically which is a good enough reason to keep some animal testing. Con also brings up a good point that change should be made to animal testing, but it should not be removed completely
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
DebateChampion1FerareTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: condo to pro because con just stops arguing which he shouldn't do lol. Con wins arguments however because even though there are significant problems with the current system of animal testing there are also positives, meaning we could possibly just reform the system of animal testing to eliminate pain and remedy the other issues listed by pro while still having the advantages listed by con. Pro never refutes this point which he must because he has the Burden Of Proof. BTW pro argues that animal testing is immoral but never proves this, simply saying that something causes pain means it is immoral makes the assumption that what causes pain is immoral when this isn't argued. If we look from say a masochistic morality, perhaps pain is good. So this argument is insufficient, you must justify the morality you claim. If you have a problem with this rfd message me.