The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Animal testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 10/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 441 times Debate No: 81739
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Animal testing needs to be stopped.


Animal testing should not be stopped, because there are many animals whose anatomy does not differ much from our own. We are able to test cures and vaccines for the good of our species.
Debate Round No. 1


What would it take to make you change your position on this argument?
Who are we to say that animals are ok to experiment on, but humans aren't? Who made humans superior to anything? Animals are not capable of speaking or logically communicating their position on the subject (which undoubtedly would be against animal testing, laughing) so the humans take the unopposed initiative to test on helpless, innocent, and unaware creatures who have as much of a right to life as we do. Most drugs passed on animals end up failing on humans anyways. The Food and Drug Administration has reported that 92 out of 100 tests that are successful on animals end up failing on humans. I do not have the data of how many tests that number came from, but when I read 92 out of 100 I immediately picture the hundreds of helpless creatures who lost their lives to "science." Lives that they will never get back.


In this round, I will provide rebuttals to my opponent's arguments.

Protecting the human race and increasing their longevity is of the utmost importance. If there is any way that we could save lives or cure diseases and cancer, why would someone not take that chance? Arguing the morality is irrelevant, because it is a logical choice to test animals to cut losses of human lives.

Your failure to provide hard evidence to back up your claims is curcial. Without it, you do not have tangible nor empirical evidence to support your claims. It would serve you well to state your sources in the following round, if applicable.

Of course they have the right to life, and by all means, allow animals to live. Science is progressing, and conditions for animals in labs is ever increasing. There are not "mad" scientists working in labs to endanger the lives of innocent animals. Testing in laboratories is purely to find ways to fight diseases and eradicate them, to the large benefit of humanity as a whole.

Therefore, I have refuted your claims, because you have not provided any tangible or empirical evidence to support them. Animal Testing should be continued, to the benefit of humanity as a whole.
Debate Round No. 2


Protecting the human race is very important, to humans. Humans are only a fraction of this shared planet so why are their lives the most important? You say it is the "logical" choice to test on animals. You are going to have to define your terms for me on that point. Also if we are throwing morality out the window then why stop at animals, why not just test on humans? Animals are looked down upon compared to humans so it is more acceptable to test on them, but aren't criminals looked down upon also? Why not test on the wicked who made their illegal choices already?

For the claim I made about 92 out of 100 drugs passing on animals end up failing on humans, I stated my source as the Food and Drug administration, or would you like that in MLA format?

I also do not understand what you mean by saying conditions in labs are increasing...
Animals are born to roam and be free as they had for years before humans messed with them. It doesn't take a "mad scientist" to mistreat animals, and if you think these animals are being treated well in those labs then you are mistaken...

After three dogs were forced to ingest a test substance every day for five days at Charles River Laboratories, they experienced labored breathing and a high heart rate. They became cold to the touch, were not able to be aroused and were seen with the test substance in their mouths and on their bodies. One dog died and the other two were euthanized one to two days later. USDA Annual Report of Charles River Laboratories (2005)

In a study published in a scientific journal, rats were placed in a swimming pool one at a time, and then, without any warning, an escape-proof wire net was placed over their body, forcing them underwater for 30 seconds at a time to create an experience of "underwater trauma." Neuropsychopharmacology. (2004). 29, 1962""1970. Setting Apart the Affected: The Use of Behavioral Criteria in Animal Models of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

During surgery by unsupervised, inexperienced students at St. Lawrence University, a rabbit was inadequately anesthetized and was sitting up and kicking during the procedure. Surgery on an animal who has not received adequate anesthesia can result in extreme pain and distress. USDA Annual Report of St. Lawrence University (2004)

There are hundreds of these cases out there and my sources are there for you to do some research on this portion of the debate.


TheProphett forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bet-On-It 1 year ago
YES it does
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logical-master123 12 months ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so Con gets the conduct point. However Pro had better arguments and had good arguments.