The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Animal testing should stop

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 62651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




{comment on your opinions for this debate}

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 :)


I will gladly accept this debate. To keep things fair, giving each debater an equal amount of rounds to argue, I will not post any arguments this round. Also, to be clear, I will argue that animal testing should remain a standard of product/medicine testing.

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!
Debate Round No. 1


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" [1]

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. [3]

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. [4] 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.

(2) Regulations

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. [5]

(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.



Debate Round No. 2


Rahma-ali forfeited this round.


All arguments extended.

Not sure why my entire last round was bolded... Didn't mean to do that.
Debate Round No. 3


Rahma-ali forfeited this round.


Extended a final time. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture