Animal testing should stop
Debate Rounds (4)
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, is a cruel way of testing products/medicines on animals. every year, 150 million animals are burned, crippled and blinded ever year. I believe it should be abolished. i thank whoever takes the debate :)
Disclaimer: I will approach this debate without bias. This indicates that I am not supporting animal testing, nor am I disagreeing with it. I am simply taking the Con side to this debate, and I will not reveal my true beliefs on this subject.
Looking forward to a clean, well-versed debate. Thanks!
Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal in an extremely bestial way. And their only "crime" is not being able to talk. There are many reasons to as why animal testing is without doubly wrong; animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours. If a type of food for example was eaten by a human, would you say that it is harmless to them? An example, cats and dogs are dangerously intolerant to chocolate, if they eat it, they can die. For humans, we indulge in it all the time.
Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable. Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don"t work or are dangerous, and of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests
My opponent puts forth some seemingly well thought out arguments, yet I will approach them one by one in this round.
(1) Cruelty of Animal Testing
"Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal [sic] in an extremely bestial way."
This is wrong for several reasons. First, there was no definition to the term bestial, nor any explanation of what would make this cruelty "extreme". Furthermore, as I looked into the topic, I found this definition of animal testing:
"the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs" 
Nowhere in the definition does it state that the testing must be cruel, nor does it state that the testing is solely for testing products, such as shampoo, lotion, etc... It simply state that animal testing is is the use of non-human animals in research.
(2) Different Anatomy
"... animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours."
Once again, this statement is wrong. The majority of animals share organ systems that mirror our internal workings. From personal experience (granted this cannot be proven, but I am willing to give a link to other related experiences), during a medical camp this summer we learned about the cardiovascular system. Yet when we did the dissections, the heart did not originate from a deceased human, but a slaughtered cow. How could this be helping our learning, or teaching us about the human anatomy, if the cow did not resemble the same systems that are seen in a human? This does not apply to cows alone. Monkeys, mice, rabbits, and many other animals (if not most) all share certain characteristics concerning bodily functions. Most animals (if not all) used in testing have a similar breathing system; these same animals all have a vascular system that transports blood throughout the body. I in no way see how these test animals have very different bodies or anatomy.
Furthermore, the chocolate argument is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. This is one example of something that harms animals (a select few) and not humans. Not relevant to the testing of animals.
(3) Unreliable Tests
"Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable."
First, even if the BOP is split, Pro has failed to prove his side, instead simply stated some statistics that may or may not be true.
Second, I would like to contend that this unreliability is not based in truth. There isn't really anything to back up this claim except for that statement alone, given by Pro. I would argue that this testing is in fact reliable. Pro also states that "92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials." This may be true, but one must look at another aspect of this. One must understand that even though these tests may fail, there are two points that show this is a good thing. First, animal testing prevents an outstanding amount of dangerous tests to making it to human trials. Second, there are a good majority of drugs that don't even make it to pre-clinical trials due to extensive non-animal testing. 
Now I will address a few of my arguments in favor of animal testing.
(1) Past Success in Testing
I would like to open by saying that animal testing has been the basis of countless discoveries in the medical field. This can be seen in a number of vaccine discoveries, such as penicillin research (conducted by Chain and Florey), Tuberculosis research (conducted by Koch), advances in asthma research (conducted by Dale and Loewi), and many others.  With these few examples, it can be seen that, in an effort to better humanity and protect us from deadly diseases, animal research has been a great help.
There are already regulations in place protecting animals (for the most part). I will address these exceptions in my next argument. Going back to the regulations, however, it becomes known that these animals being used in testing are protected to maintain ethical treatment. In the UK, greater-apes are protected from testing. 
(3) Selective Breeding
The only animals not protected by these regulations stated in argument 2 would be mice, rats, and birds. However, while they are not protected (and sometimes not recorded due to millions of tests), these animals are bred for testing. They are not inhumanely taken from the wild to be tested on. There was never a chance for these animals to "go back to normal life" or other arguments posted by many anti-animal testing advocates, but instead only a life of testing. This selective breeding goes quite quickly, and allows scientists to choose certain traits across several generations. Ultimately, while individuals argue that this breeding solely for testing is inhumane, it is for the benefit of society. Though it is only my opinion, I would much rather have mice be subjected to testing that could ultimately end their lives than allow certain diseases to tear through the human race and cause devastation due to a lack of testing.
Rahma-ali forfeited this round.
Not sure why my entire last round was bolded... Didn't mean to do that.
Rahma-ali forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.