The Instigator
Sathu
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
24 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 4 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 55654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Sathu

Pro

Animals feel just as much pain as humans do. The only difference is that they do not have a voice. Millions of innocent animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and many others, die each year due to the gruesome torture of animal testing. Animal testing should be banned for its cruelty, inefficiency, and uselessness.

The killing of harmless animals for human testing and research is malevolent. Many multi-product manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson and Clorox, poison and abuse animals during experimentation that is not required by law. Approximately 1.13 million animals are tested on each year, and 76,000 of which are subjected to torture without pain relief. In addition to not receiving proper pain relief treatment, animals are locked up in undersized cages with no space to move around in without any toys. This action itself causes many animals to die due to loneliness and lack of intellectual and physical stimulation. Although Congress has passed the Unites States Animal Welfare Act to set a certain minimum requirements for humane treatment of nonhuman animals, it is still ineffective! The Animal Welfare Act excludes protection of mice and rats, which make up 95% of animals in laboratories. Though many consider them to be rodents and are worthless, shockingly, mice and rats have very similar nervous systems to humans, meaning they are able to experience just as much happiness, affection, and most importantly, pain.

Aside from the brutality of animal testing, animal testing is also inefficient. Research of the importance of animal experimentation have shown how animal experimentation is unneeded, misleading, and does not provide comparable results to other methods. Studies of the Medical Research Modernization Committee have discovered that treatments effective in animals tended to have excessive side effects on humans. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration stated that 92% of drugs found safe in animals often fail during human clinical trials. In fact, Vioxx, a painkiller, had been tested in many examinations and found safe and even helpful to the heart. Consequently, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 for causing 320,000 heart attacks, in which 140,000 were vital.

Not only is animal experimentation inefficient, but it is also pointless. There are a significant amount of alternatives that scientists can and do use, and with the advanced technology we have, as of today, many laboratories have designed substitutes for living animals. For instance, Ceetox, a contract research laboratory, uses human cell-based in vitro toxicity while biotechnology firm, H?REL, created a three-dimensional human "liver" to study the breakdowns of chemistry. Also, researched of the National Cancer Institute and United States military have shown that Mat Tek"s three-dimensional skin tissue is a great replacement for testing cosmetics, weapons, radiations, etc. Though one might argue that human-suffering is our main priority and that it could possibly endanger human health by allowing products to enter the market before tested for toxicity, animal testing cannot determine whether it is toxic of not. Animals do not have replicate DNA to humans, therefore products tested on at present are still toxic for humans, even if claimed to have been safe on animals. Sciences have accelerated increasingly over the couple decades, giving scientists and researchers much technology for human safety usage.

To sum up, experimentation on animals should be outlawed. It is inhumane, ineffective, and pointless. Being an animal is no different that being a human. Everyone is able to feel pain, but we everyone can also step up for the movement opposing animal testing and speak for the speechless.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate.

There are a few things at this point that I would like to point out.

First, my opponent has already lost. Everything in her argument is merely copy and pasted from this link: http://www.teenink.com...

The website is called "teen ink" and the website title notes that its purpose is to display "Magazine, website, and books written by teens since 1989."

So, that my adversary has plagiarized the entirety of her argument from this easily searchable website is one thing. But the piece she copy and pasted was from a mere teenager. The young girl who wrote the essay didn't include a single footnote in the piece, either, so we have no reason to take as fact anything that has been written at this point.

Next, if my adversary would like to have a genuine debate on this topic, as I would, I would like to invite her to present her own arguments, including proper sourcing, attributions and so forth.

Finally, if she chooses to have a genuine debate on this -- and I sincerely hope that she does, though I have my suspicions that we may simply see a series of forfeits -- I would remind her that, because she is affirming the resolution and making a positive statement, she possesses the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
Sathu

Pro

Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it. By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food. But of course there are worse things. His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Well, there isn't much to say at this point as my opponent has pretty much admitted to plagiarism and appears to think that it is benign. That unfortunately isn't true.

"Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it."

First, it's fascinating that you've admitted to plagiarism, which to me is the equivalent of a full forfeit.

Second, this is not the case. You can use some of the arguments in a piece, but literally copying and pasting somone else's work and passing it off as your own work is not permitted, neither here or in academia. I can tell you, as a published academic, that I would get into big trouble if I ever attempted to do that.

Third, you haven't proven anything. And, because you bear the burden of proof, you need to prove your case.

Fourth, you can call me Mr. Keynes, if you'd prefer.

"By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food." His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about.

This doesn't prove anything.

First you haven't cited the story nor used it as evidence -- please don't copy and paste it. So, at this point, you're only argument is "Trsut me, I'm right."

Second you're making an assertion that animal testing is cruel without proving it.

Third you haven't connected cruelty to a ban. The resolution does not pertain as to whether animal testing is cruel in its current form, but whether it should be flat-out banned. If, for instance, animal testing were modified so that it weren't cruel, and therefore there wasn't a need to ban it -- as your only contention thus far is that animal testing is cruel -- the resolution would fall.

Fourth in claiming that "Kyle knows his destiny" you pronounce that the mouse is conscious and aware. You've done somhting similar by saying that "He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." These are extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence do you have of either of these claims? How can you prove either of them?


"Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?"

My opponent is quite right that dogs are used for testing in the United States. As I said, she does not conntect this to the resolution.

Her argument is essentaily this:

P1: If (x) is cruel, it should be banned.
P2: (x) is cruel.
C: X should be banned.

If this were the case, we have to ask ourselves how we define "cruel." Not only is the phrase subjective, but then we have to consider how far we would like to go in our endeavor to eliminate cruelty. Do we ban all forms of animal slaughter? Do we agree with PETA that we animals shouldn't even be kept as pets? If that were the case, wouldn't animals be subjected to even worse fates in the wild?

The point is, my opponent cannot take a hypocritical stance that some forms of cruelty are fine, but others are not. At the same time, she cannot ignore that fact that, if animal testing were to be reformed to eliminate cruelty, the resolution falls, anyway.



At this point, even though I do not bear the burden of proof, I will offer my own contentions.


Contention 1: Animal Testing is Necessary

Truth be told, there simply isn't any alternative to animal testing, and we would be foregoing critical scientific research. For instance, all veterninary research requires animal testing, every medical breakthrough over the past 10 years has utilized it, every Nobel Prize Winner in medicine or physiology from as early as 1901 utilized it in their work, and several surgical techniques (e.g., hip replacement and heart transplants), seveal medicines (e.g., several antibiotics and pain killers), and several anasthetics all relied on animal testing -- as did medical techniquies such as MRI's. Simply put, there is no way to substitute non-animal testing completely for animal testing. We would be sacrificng major medical breakthroughs and put human lives at risk.

[1. http://tinyurl.com...]

Contention 2: My Opponent's Case is Deceptive

My opponent cites dogs in her example. However, in the U.K., dogs, cats, and primates only account for 0.2 percent of the animals used in research (1). There may be ways, as I said earlier, to reform testing, but using the example of a dog is highly deceptive and Pro is leaving out crucial context.

At the same time, the U.K. has strict regulations on the type of testing that can be carried out. For instance, animal testing may only be used in cases where non-animal testing cannot be substituted. Ethics committees constinually review practices to ensure that the benefits of the testing outweigh the costs, the costs being the suffering to the animals.

Contention 3: Trade-Off Between Human Suffering and Animal Suffering

As I have pointed out, in many cases animal testing is non-substitutable. It has been crucial in developing crucial medicines and breakthroughs that we use today. So, if you intended to stop the suffering of animals by banning animal testing, you would significantly increase the suffering of human beings who are suffering and dying with otherwise preventable diseases. Surely my adversary would not support that.

Contention 4: Philosophical Case

There is in fact a philosophical case against animal testing. Rene Descartes, for instance, did not consider animals to be conscious, minded creatures, but essentially machines who operated solely with respect to causal laws, noted in the fact that they coudn't display adaptibility as it pertained to language and behavior.

Peter Carruthers takes a simialr position. He argues that consciousness necessitates higher-order thinking. For this reason, not all human behavior is conscious. Because animals cannot exhibit higher-order thinking, an argument for consciousness is essentially null and void.

[2. http://tinyurl.com...]

Debate Round No. 2
Sathu

Pro

Sathu forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent has forfeited and all of my arguments have been dropped.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
gorant
Animal testing should be banned immediately. I support Pro since I totally agree with pro comments.
Posted by Everland 2 years ago
Everland
correction: i wish i could do it like that all these links and organization i guess my level is low
Posted by Everland 2 years ago
Everland
i wish i could do it like that allthese linksand organization i guess my level islow
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
Poiyurt
Well, this one looks like a solid thrashing.
Posted by Everland 2 years ago
Everland
@JohnMaynardKeynes: i dont think we will see any valid argument from the other side from what we have seen so far they sound like the kind that knows nothing about scientific procedure and nothing about real tests on animals so i am not expectiong much on the debate
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
@Voices4thevoiceless: You are not my contender in this debate. Please save for your opinions for the forums.
Posted by Everland 2 years ago
Everland
please would someone explain how fallacious and false are the statements of the anti testing guy
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
plagiarism - the act of copying other people's work and claiming it your own.

don't do it buddy.
Posted by Everland 2 years ago
Everland
the use of fallacious (the beagle is so cute let's save him) but they dont tell you about the kids waiting for the medicine to be tested
Posted by Voice4thevoiceless 2 years ago
Voice4thevoiceless
Sorry for the cut off, here is a link to the full article. Please read so that you understand why animal testing is pointless!!
http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
SathuJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism and forfeit
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
SathuJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Forfeit + Plagarism = an angry Envisage. A very angry envisage.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SathuJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
Progressivist
SathuJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism by Pro. Pro also forfeited last round. Spelling and grammar to Con because Pro repeatedly used "i" instead of "I". Since Pro made no argument for themselves, and only defended their use of plagiarism, argument goes to Con. Con also only had the only reliable source.