The Instigator
Jezzkay
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Jack212
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons)

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 5 votes the winner is...
Jezzkay
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,050 times Debate No: 36472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Jezzkay

Pro

To begin I would like to say that I do love animals & if there was some other way to certify that medicine would work without testing animals then I would be absolutely for it.
I hope we can have a friendly debate & please do not get offended by my points if you are truly passionate about this subject.
Thankyou
Jack212

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Jezzkay

Pro

Antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, heart-bypass surgery - it reads like an A to Z of medical progress. But these major advances have something in common: they were all developed and tested using animals.

Animal experimentation is a contentious issue.

It works. Some would have you believe there are alternatives for all animal research, or that animal testing is always misleading and unsafe. These are fallacies.

Where there are reliable alternatives, of course, we use them - that's what the law demands. Magnetic resonance imaging, computer models and work on isolated tissues and cell cultures can be useful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can.
No one chooses to use animals where there is no need. It gives no one any pleasure, and it is time consuming, expensive and - quite rightly - subject to layers of regulation. Yet it is still the best way of finding out what causes disease, and of knowing whether new treatments will be safe and effective.
Biologically, we are similar to species such as mice and rats, because we have practically the same set of genes. Their bodies respond to disease and treatments much as ours do. If a genetically modified "purple tomato" can fight cancer in mice, as announced yesterday, it might work for humans, too.
This could be the beginning of the cure for cancer.
Jack212

Con

Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it.

Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation:

1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't.

2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans.

3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses.

4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty.

5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss.

6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.
Debate Round No. 2
Jezzkay

Pro

Firstly I do not find torture in students the slightest bit amusing.
"No big loss" imagine the heart torn parents of these students, these are people, not trash.
Secondly they do already test on humans, adult volunteers, who get payed ALOT.

First they test on human cells (giving them the basic idea that the chemical would work)
Then on Animals (mainly rats as they are similar to the human structure, organs and ECT)
Then on healthy volunteers (to check for symptoms)
And finally on the sick (to cure the patient)

When you say the testing on mice is 'lousy', they test the same drug on thousands of mice and other animals such as dogs and rats. The testing on mice isn't infact lousy, it only certifies that little bit extra that the drug works.

"Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss."
1. If the world was overpopulated then they wouldn't be looking for a cure to save them.
2. Pretty much everyone contributes to the destruction of the environment. Some students are looking into ways to REDUCE the destruction of the environment.
3. Some of these students could be training to be a surgeon or a lawyer perhaps which you surely wouldn't just want to through away?

Your debate defeats basic human rights & I don't think you would find many students willing to be tested with a deadly chemical for a chocolate bar or vouchers.
Jack212

Con

I disagree, many of them are trash. Regardless, the same argument defeats animal testing. Mice are living too. They have brains that think and feel. They can experience pain. Every mouse used in a laboratory is a mouse that doesn't get to live a full life. Those mice never get a choice. They can't refuse to be experimented on because they can't talk. Students can, however. They can understand the risks and make an informed decision. If some of them are dumb enough to take lethal drugs, that's their fault. Or more, it's a typical Friday night.

1. Scientists are idealistic.

2 and 3. I repeat, if they're dumb enough to take the drugs then it's their own fault. Besides, the world has enough lawyers.

Your argument defeats basic animal rights. A living creature is harmed either way, so why not skip step 2 and test on consenting humans instead?

I know plenty of students who would take drugs for chocolate bars. They'd just be annoyed that the drugs weren't IN the chocolate bars.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 4 years ago
Benshapiro
JezzkayJack212Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons reasoning: Since animal testing has led to successful treatments, we should no longer continue animal testing because it is cruel. Therefore we should test on humans. *facepalm*
Vote Placed by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
JezzkayJack212Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has given irrelevant arguments. Not good. Pro on the other hand is also not able to convince me but has better arguments and views.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
JezzkayJack212Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont know if con was trolling or if hes just retarded, but cons arguments focused on violating human rights instead of animal rights to test medical advancements which didnt hold up at all. Arguments easily go to the pro
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
JezzkayJack212Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything besides arguments was a tie. Arguments definitely go to Pro. Con skipped the step where he showed animals are more important than human and how humans are trash. Pro showed how Con's plan went against human rights, something which Con didn't adequately respond to. Saying "overpopulation" or "It's hilarious" isn't justification for testing dangerous drugs on humans. Pro won this hands down.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 4 years ago
Oromagi
JezzkayJack212Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply stated that cruelty to animals sucks and provided one less-than-viable alternative. Neither side addressed whether our responsibility to humans exceeds that of our responsibility to animals, which seems like the central point.