Animal testing should be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that animal testing should not be banned.
| Taking the lives of other creatures for survival is an amoral act |
Consider a case where a cheetah has to consume a gazelle. If we follow Arnav's reasoning, the gazelle has life and hence rights. The cheetah cuts the gazelle"s life short because of its "selfish", "insensitive" and "incorrect" needs. Yet, it is what nature intends it to be - the predator will eat the prey, which will eat other forms of living things in turn.
The purpose of this action is survival and the propagation. It is neither a "right" thing to do, nor a "wrong" thing to do, it just is.
| The concept of Rights |
"Rights" is a man-made construct. As a society, we agree on certain fundamental rights which all of us should have, some of which are inviolable. These rights exist and are communally enforced in order to protect our interests and allow for a stable and safe society. It is for reasons of self preservation that we give ourselves rights.
Despite our advances, the need to survive and propagate persists even if it may be in a different form from a cheetah vs. a gazelle. We understand the nature of diseases and viruses, and how rapid they evolve. Animal testing should be permitted; it is merely our form of adapting to the environment.
There seems to be a contention regarding the subject of animal testing vs animal killing another for its survival. I shall accepting that perhaps I was not clear in my defense of animal testing above. I wanted to show mainly two prepositions:
P1: Survival is a necessary part of nature; it is amoral if a creature takes a life of another
P2: Conducting animal testing is necessary for survival
C: Therefore, animal testing should be permitted
SURVIVAL IS NECESSARY; IT IS AMORAL
Arnav agrees that eating animals is okay ("we eat them I agree")- it is a necessary part of survival. To survive means to continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardships. 
I brought up killing because I wanted to take the extreme position that humans are permitted to do anything, even up to the point of taking another lay animal's life, provided it is for the reason of survival.
There is no difference between (a) survival from nutrition and (b) survival from deriving drugs quickly enough to combat virus or bacteria ("VB"). Both are necessary for us to continue to live / exist, and the lack of both will put us in danger (re: definition of survival). In both of these cases, it is amoral if we end up killing the animal or subjecting it in a painful situation. (Though we should strive to minimize it) After all, who is to say that a gazelle does not feel "tortured"?
CONDUCTING ANIMAL TESTING IS NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL
The only major limiting factor in whether we can survive today is how effective we are in combating the attacks of constantly evolving VB. VB such as the gram-positive bacteria have evolved resistance to drugs we develop to protect ourselves. 
The extent of how well we survive is dependent solely on how fast we are able to come up with new drugs to combat the threat of VB attacks. We need animal testing.
Nothing wrong; it shouldn't be banned.
Arnav_Murli 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.