The Instigator
Sorrow
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
mackoman_93
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Animal testing should not be allowed.

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 8 votes the winner is...
mackoman_93
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,482 times Debate No: 11485
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

Sorrow

Pro

I am for animal testing. Looking forward to what my opponent has to say.
mackoman_93

Con

Granted, the affirmative can provide multiple reasons why animal testing is beneficial and should be around it is important to remember the negative consequences of animal testing must be acknowledged.

The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading." A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways.

Furthermore, many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative.

Thank you

http://www.opposingviews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sorrow

Pro

I mean to clarify my stance on animal testing, as the title was a mistake on my behalf. I am for animal testing.

That being said, would you please elaborate on your opinion on animal testing? It was not entirely clear within your statements.
mackoman_93

Con

I am aware of your stance on animal testing an I am debating that it should NOT be allowed. I provided two reasons as to why that is...

I negate animal testing (despite what the resolution says) for the following two reasons...

Point one: ANIMAL TESTING CAN HAVE MISLEADING RESULTS

The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading." A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways.

on to my point two...

Point two: ANIMAL TESTING HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative.

(I'm sorry if I'm still not understanding your stance).

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
Sorrow

Pro

Thoughts on Point #1:

Even if animal testing is a double-edge sword, most would agree when I say that testing products on ANIMALS, not HUMANS, is preferable. The end-result may be guaranteed either way, but in both scenarios, humans would be harmed last which means we have least room for error, albeit the non-precocious mistakes of scientists. Also, I am unsure as to how animals may contract HIV/AIDS in the first place, seeing as how its a human-benefited thing only. I am skeptic of the scientist in question's abilities, seeing as how monkeys would not need a vaccine for HIV when it is impossible for them to ever receive such STDs.

As for the "positive changes...[which] have not occurred," I may require some enlightenment on that topic, as I have this feeling that animal testing has incurred much more positive and beneficiary changes to the way modern medicine is developed. Not only modern medicine, but also an entirety and array of other consumer-use products, such as cosmetics and clothing (although that is a much more provocative subject).

"A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. In fact, about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic research." - http://www.buzzle.com...

"Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing." - http://www.writefix.com...

If your whole argument is based on cruelty and future "what-ifs" I think that it is clear as to what the majority of the scientific community thinks on this issue, granted that whilst morality is a major concern, animal testing WILL and HAS benefited not only HUMANS but also ANIMALS too.

Thank you.
mackoman_93

Con

My opponent sums up his rebuttal in these simple, yet critically important words, "what-ifs" and "cruelty". All of what my opponent has said about incredible gifts of medicine, physicians supporting the use if animals for clinical research and how none of it is possible with out animal testing. This is the thing that we are overlooking. It is possible without animal testing. Not only is research via animal testing misleading, as I have pointed out through all three rounds of this debate (and was not contested until now), it has had many negative consequences overlooked by the affirmative. These aren't what-if's these are the facts. If we aren't willing to test them on our selves, then how can one justify testing it on something else? This is the fundamental argument that my opponent has failed to produce, therefore I urge the voters to award a negative vote.

thank you and good debate :)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
LOL at the obvious and intentional vote-bombing. How rude.

I'm even hypothesizing that you created multiple accounts just so you could vote-bomb me, Mackoman. Whatever.
Posted by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
lol.. I was thinking about voting till i realized that the voting period doesnt end for a year XD much time to consider my ballot
Posted by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
lol.. I was thinking about voting till i realized that the voting period doesnt end for a year XD much time to consider my ballot
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Why does every new member seem to fail at setting sides.... I mean really its not hard!
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
accidentally set this as 1 year voting period crap -_-

oh well lol
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
"
While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading."
"

lol!
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
Good debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by shlebear_94 6 years ago
shlebear_94
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:05 
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 6 years ago
mackoman_93
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by MeganLoaskia 6 years ago
MeganLoaskia
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
Sorrowmackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00