The Instigator
Anish1234
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
LLAMA
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Animal testing

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 3 votes the winner is...
LLAMA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,391 times Debate No: 11912
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Anish1234

Pro

Hi I would like to thank my opponent for my first debate. I would like to begin by stating that I am for animal testing.

Here are some reasons:

One reason is that animals are brutally killed for food, by opposing experimentation, you are being hypocritical.

look at this site: http://www.chooseveg.com...

how can you eat animals that have gone through this and consider yourself moral.

second:

Animal testing has come up with many cures for diseases such as asthma. We would not be able to find these cures without testing.

I would like to see what my opponent says
LLAMA

Con

If people oppose animal testing, they do not have to be hypocritical. The eating of another species occurs in the animal kingdom (carnivores or omnivores) and since humans are omnivores (1) it is completely natural for us to eat meat. However, it is not natural the way we raise animals to be slaughtered and I oppose that. I support free-range raising, I eat a reduced-meat diet and encourage my parents to buy less meat and organic products due to the environmental, health, and animal rights issues it leaves me not being a cause of. Therefore, I can not be hypocritical in debating animal testing.

Now, animal testing has lead to scientific discoveries such as kidney transplants, drugs for asthma, cancer treatments and others, but, there are several major flaws in animal testing making it immoral, wrong and actually unnecessary.

Animals bodies differ greatly from human bodies. Baboons are not humans, rabbits are not humans and rats are simply not human. No animal other than a human can provide accurate results in a test because they are not human and something that may be healthy to a rat may not be healthy to a human. The results of animal testing are not accurate. Rats, mice and birds are the test subjects of 80-95% of all experiments in animal testing and they aren't even of the same phylum as humans. How can scientists expect the results to apply to humans when the test subject is so drastically different?(2) Look at the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide came out on the German market late in the 1950s and had previously been safely tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers that supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", over 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities.(3) The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 100,000 people every year are killed and more than 2 million are hospitalized as a result of prescription drugs used as prescribed and that were tested on animals routinely.

The tests done on animals for cancer research are actually not productive whatsoever. Animals do not get the same diseases as humans and so research is being done by artificially inducing "human" cancer on the animals. They will not react the same way as a human would and even if a treatment is developed, it might not even work on humans since we are so drastically different from other species. Animal testing for cancer has resulted in the loss of billions of dollars, countless animal lives and 30 years of wasted time on inaccurate and ineffective research.(3) What about Penicillin which kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved countless human lives? Arsenic which isn't poisonous to rats, mice or sheep but deadly to humans? Or Digitalis which dangerously raises blood pressure in dogs but continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate? Animal testing contradicts all of these things.(3)

The worst part is that there are so many alternative studies that are much more reliable, accurate, and safer. Methods that do not destroy life such as computer models, cell cultures, and even human studies. It is estimated that millions of animals die from testing unnecessarily and to a wasteful cause.(1) These alternatives would remove the suffering of another living, thing, reduce costs for testing, be more accurate and not cause millions of deaths in testing and then countless others from the inaccurate results. Animal testing is an unnecessary, inaccurate and wasteful testing method and it is immoral torture to animals.

1. http://www.biology-online.org...
2. http://www.peta.org...
3. http://www.whitecoatwelfare.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Anish1234

Pro

Anish1234 forfeited this round.
LLAMA

Con

PRO forfeited the round so I will let my first argument stand for itself. Vote!
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Actually that video encouraged me to join peta now. I'm still crying.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Well if thats whats needed to get the attention of those horrible people.

Why not? Most people that oppose that are for war, how is war any more justified?
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
PETA supports terrorism and bombing in animal testing factories even universities.
Posted by LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
excuse me, pro made no argument, so I feel my vote is definitely just in being entirely in my favor.
Posted by Railsguardian 6 years ago
Railsguardian
I feel alone.

I'm the only one that voted :( .
Posted by LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
Please don't forfeit.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
Anish1234LLAMATied
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 atheistman 6 years ago
atheistman
Anish1234LLAMATied
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 Railsguardian 6 years ago
Railsguardian
Anish1234LLAMATied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07