The Instigator
Aibek
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Animal testing should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,837 times Debate No: 26547
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Aibek

Con

Animal testing should be banned, first reason is that animal testing is cruel process, also there consuptions of natural exists. And it is too risky to trust these experements, because the organizms and body structures of animals are different than people's, so when person get drug which have been made by animal testing, there can be bad consequences, as ill people. The government should ban animal testing, because they could find alternatives, because nowadays there are modern technologies which could make better and trustable drugs.
Zaradi

Pro

I'm assuming two things right now:

1. That it's okay to post arguments in the first round, since my opponent has done the same thing
2. That my opponent made a mistake when choosing sides, and would actually like to debate the pro side of the resolution.

So voters, please acknowledge that my opponent is taking the PRO side of the resolution, and I will be defending the CON side of the resolution. Let's not get the debate sidetracked by a silly mistake like that.

Also, the burden of proof will be on my opponent for a) instigating the debate and b) advocating for a change in the status quo. So I'll spend my time refuting his arguments. If he cannot prove why we should ban animal testing, then you negate the resolution and vote con (which means pro). With that, I thank my opponent and wish him luck. Without further adeiu, let's get this rolling.

My opponent said "first reason is that animal testing is cruel process,"

>> The problem with this is that just because something is cruel now, doesn't mean the concept of it is cruel. People being cruel to animals isn't a reason to ban animal testing, but rather a reason to improve the process of animal testing to be more humane to animals. For example, instead of sticking them in cages, we could house them in facilities specially designed to resemble their natural habitat. Instead of brutally slaughtering those that we don't need, we could either euthenize them humanely or release them back into their natural habitat whenever we are done with them. I'll concede that the current process of animal testing isn't exactly stellar, but a few bad apples isn't a good enough reason to throw out the entire crop. We can refine our process to make it more fair to them while still accomplishing what we need to accomplish.

My opponent said "also there consuptions of natural exists."

>> I'm a little confused by what my opponent is trying to say here. I would like it if he would clarify in future rounds as to what he means by this, so I can address it properly.

My opponent said "And it is too risky to trust these experements, because the organizms and body structures of animals are different than people's,"

>> This actually isn't true. The human body and psyche has so much in common with animals that we don't even know how much in common we are, and are constantly learning new things every day. But some of the things we DO know are:

1. Humans and chimpanzee's are genetically 96% the same.(1)(2)
2. Chimpanzee's brain patterns are similar to human brain patterns when attempting to communicate.(2)
3. Chimpanzees are capable of handling tools much like we do.(2)
4. Humans and Chimpanzees have the same emotional actions and responses.(3)

So because we have so much in common physically, mentally, and emotionally with animals such as the chimpanzee, we are able to rely on test results to a fair degree of certainty. Of course there are exceptions to this, but on the grander scale most test results involving animals as human surrogates are accurate and sound.

My opponent said "The government should ban animal testing, because they could find alternatives"

>> I don't think that just because there's an alternative to some action, we have reason to ban the action taking place currently. For example, the vast majority of people who travel to and from work, school, stores, or any other place generally use some form of automotive vehicle (also known in plain English as a car). But there are plenty of alternatives to driving a car to and from places: we could walk, ride a bike or skateboard, ride a horse, or even bounce on a pogo stick in the direction of where we want to go. But the fact that those alternatives exist are not reason in and of themselves to ban using cars to go places.

My opponent said "nowadays there are modern technologies which could make better and trustable drugs."

>> While this is certainly true (I would be a fool to try to argue that technology wasn't improving in some way), improving technology does not automatically bring about improving medication. We would still need some medium of testing the product to ensure that it was safe before we could sell it to the public, and that brings us right back to animals.

Therefore, the resolution is negated, as my opponent has thus-far failed to uphold his Burden of Proof.

Sources:

(1) - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
(2) - http://www.livescience.com...
(3) - http://phys.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Aibek

Con

Aibek forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Pro

Why. Why. Why u forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
Aibek

Con

Aibek forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Pro

I'm so lonely....I am so lonely...
Debate Round No. 3
Aibek

Con

Aibek forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Pro

I got no booodyyyyy.........I am so lllooooonellyyyyyyyyy!
Debate Round No. 4
Aibek

Con

Aibek forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Pro

FINALLY THIS IS OVER!

Thank God!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Gotta love that six month voting period xD
Posted by CRSdave 4 years ago
CRSdave
Just an FYI"You have taken the Con position. This means that you are against the resolution. You are against the idea that animal testing should be banned. You should have taken the pro side to show that animal testing should in fact be banned if that is what you believe. Judging from your round 1 explanation, I would say that you are pro "animal testing should be banned."
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
AibekZaradiTied
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: Forfizzle
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
AibekZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits. SG to Con because of Zaradi's extensive quoting which makes his round a poorly organized one.
Vote Placed by truthseeker613 4 years ago
truthseeker613
AibekZaradiTied
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 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: I know it looks like a vote bomb, but it's not.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
AibekZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Before the debate I agreed with Con, as the Con side of the resolution should be "Animal testing should not be banned", however Con took the Pro position. Pro had excellent arguments that went unrefuted by Con. Spelling/grammar obviously to Pro for Con's incoherent argument/sentences.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
AibekZaradiTied
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: ...
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
AibekZaradiTied
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: FF