The Instigator
TorqueDork
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
dtaylor971
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,588 times Debate No: 40887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

TorqueDork

Pro

Animals can further our understand of science vastly by experimentation, as well as save millions of lives.. Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl.
dtaylor971

Con

I accept this debate. I am not a strong supporter of any animal groups such as PETA, but I still think that animal testing should be banned. And I will proceed to tell you why, but first, I will argue with you on your points.



"Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl."
Therefore, you prefer the girl to die? But I thought you were on the other side.

"Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die?"
I don't think that you understand animal testing thoroughly. One lab rat isn't going to provide the key to a strong vaccination. Thousands of animals have to be tortured, tested, and killed. And it usually takes a lot longer than a day to get a scientific breakthrough. If one lab rat could find the cure to cancer, then I'd be all for it. But I'm going to dig a bit deeper into the statistics. As a population, the whole world uses up to THREE every SECOND for testing. That's... 274,000 per day, 100 million per year [1].
Yep. That's right. 3 per second.
I don't know how you can be possibly for this, even with all of the PROS that it does have... which actually isn't anything besides cures.

Now for my own arguments, which I have stacked up like a pile of books waiting to fall over.

Argument 1: The cost of testing is around $136 million per year [1]
We are spending way too much on something we shouldn't even be doing in the first place. If you think your taxes are going mostly towards roads and schools, that is wrong. A ton of it is going to animal testing. If we just stop animal testing, we wouldn't have to pay as much money and tons of innocent animals would be saved from the harm that animal testing causes them.

Argument 2: They feel pain, too!
Since the beginning of time, animals felt pain. We feel pain. Every living thing (that has a brain) feels pain.
Imagine if that was you. How would you feel? Because this is exactly what we are doing to the animals. We know they feel pain, and yet we continue to do what we do. Even in extremely painful procedures, animals are not given anything, like drugs that we are given so we don't feel any pain during surgery [2]. They also can't express their pain to us, so even if a drug passes in an animal, they can't express how much the drug hurt them. If they could talk, we would all be crying because of how much pain in felt.

Argument 3: Why is a human life more valued than an animals life?
Well? Have an answer? I do. It shouldn't be. Humans are just animals too, we just don't realize it. At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something. In ten years, that is a billion. Say the flu shot saves 500,000 in the U.S from getting the flu. 36,000 of them would die [3]. Another 4 million who get the shot wouldn't be sick that year. 36,000 human lives= 1,000,000,000 animal lives? Nope. 36,000 human lives= 36,000 animal lives? That's a bit better. But it's still pretty outrageous.

To conclude, I said why pros arguments were wrong and stated three of mine with links to prove my points. Thank you for reading so far and God Bless!!! :)

[1] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...
[2] https://sites.google.com...
[3] http://www.npr.org...

Debate Round No. 1
TorqueDork

Pro

While I admit the analogy of the girl was far fetched, it was an example.

DEFENSE 1-
According to the website [http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...]
you got the "the whole world uses up to three every second" example, I don't think you got the concept. Just because they use a certain amount per year, 100 million. That doesn't mean they kill one every 3 seconds just for the hell of it, it could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up.

DEFENSE 2- Then we shall try and test on them in the least painful way possible. However, since thats often impossible, it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones. Furthermore, I feel you are trying to evoke emotions in me, but I am just as passionate about this as you are about that.

DEFENSE 3- Humans are not JUST animals. I am not saying we AREN'T animals but we are also more than that, we have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom and more importantly- WE are human, and we should do everything in our power to advance our kind.

Argument 1- Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice, .25% our Non-Human Primates. The rest our made up of other small primates. The reason rodents are so popular is because of there short life spans which allow for speedier disease development in the rodents. Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule compared to the amount of years of human lives they can be saving.

The following disease have had medicines made from animal research.
Breast Cancer
Childhood Leukemia
Lung Cancer
(Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV
Heart Disease
Diabete
And many more!

The rodents save lives.
1[http://www.mofed.org...]
2[http://www.amprogress.org...]
dtaylor971

Con

I have found so many flaws with your argument I'm just going to argue them all in short, two or three sentence arguments and then get on with my stuff.

"It could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up."
And how is that any better? That just makes it worse. Why do they test five or six at a time if the drug might fail anyway?! It's just another flaw in animal testing. Also, I have a LINK to back that up. So yes, I do get the concept.

"it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones."
Animals have just as much right, if not more, to live on this planet than we do. Who is to say that animals aren't important? Who says humans are the most important? If anything, we are the least important, because we are destroying the environment. We haven't done anything to make this world a better place except for us. If anything, that quote is just selfish.

"Humans are not JUST animals."
So neither are bunnies. Or horses. Or rats. What is your definition of "just an animal?" Sure, we're by far the smartest, but we are animals.

"We should do everything in our power to advance our kind."
And why shouldn't any other animal have the right to do that, too?!

"The rest our made up of other small primates."
Earlier, you said that "95% are mice and rats." First off, it's 85% [1], not 95%, and second off, that means 15,000,000 animals aren't rodents, but rather bunnies, dogs, moneys, cats, fish, and in rare cases, frogs [1]. And what difference does it make that rodents are being tested? Because they're not cute and useless? Mice are cute and useful, and rats get rid of many insects. We need both of them for much more than animal testing.

"Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule."
And when you multiply it by about 85,000,000...That's about 170,000,000 years of rodent life right there. And maybe, by a LONG shot, 250,000 human life years. That just does not add up. And I'm not going to get into the 7-year life of dogs and bunnies, let alone the long life of a cat.

"The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer, Childhood Leukemia, Lung Cancer, (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV, Heart Disease, Diabetes"
Then why does my brother still have diabetes? Why am I reading of so many deaths from AIDS, about 1.9 million? [2]? What's the use of "prolonging a life for 2 or three years," like you said? Does that only apply to humans? And heart disease is a huge problem, and breast cancer isn't getting much better. And lung cancer is still a death sentence.

And now onto another few of my arguments.

1. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. [3]
Would you think about that for a second? 95% of drugs that are potentially safe fail in humans. So that means that in less than 5% of the time, it is useful when they get a good sign. That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans. Just think about that. 88% of doctors agreed that animal testing is useless because of differences between humans and animals (this is said by the [3] link also.) Oh, and one more thing. 61% of all birth defects are due to drugs that passed in animals. Birth defects are up 200x since the post war times... when animal testing started. Every fact here is said by the [3] link.

2. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin." [4]
As you said, rats take up 85% of the animal testing population. And yet they have a small chance of successfully identifying what causes cancer in humans and how solve it. Scientists LITERALLY say they would be better off flipping a coin. This is more of a point than an argument, so I will have a second section to it.
Second section: What humans suffer due to failed tests
Last year, 106,000 people were killed due to medical issues due to tests of animal products. Each year, 2.1 million people are in the hospital due to medical treatments. An estimated 70,000 people in the UK are severely injured or KILLED by drugs that pass in animal testing. Wow. This is only per year.

3. So this isn't murder?
Every day, we sea murder controversy on the internet or a suspect getting jailed for killing a human, which is seen by many, if not all, as the worst possible thing that a human could do. What about killing thousands of ANIMALS per day? Why is that not a sin, or illegal, like murder? Do we really think that we are so highly above the animals that we should get to do that? If one person is jailed for killing another person, or possibly receiving a death sentence, why shouldn't a scientist be doing it? Let's take a look:
Scientists are "doing it for a good cause," killing many to save one. Murder is "also for a good cause" then. Killing one to reduce world's problems by one. It is reducing the amount of people on the Earth. If you are for animal testing, you are kind of for murder. I know I'm not for murder. And I know that I'm not for animal testing.

This is what we are doing by testing animals. Look it in the eye and say, "I'm sure it doesn't hurt one little bit."


THANK YOU FOR READING AND GOD BLESS!!! :)

[1] http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...
[2] http://www.who.int...
[3] http://www.animalliberationfront.com...
[4] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...






Debate Round No. 2
TorqueDork

Pro

"A ton of it is going to animal testing."
This is a weak point because the funding to the sciences as is is little enough, and the information is worth much more than the costs of testing. Only a fraction of tax money is even going to animal testing at all and it is a ludicrous notion that 136 Million is a lot, "Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars.

Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from.

You are recommending rats are equal to us, " At the most, a humans life MIGHT, in the best of circumstances, be worth two tested animals. But more than 100 million animals are used yearly to find a cure for something." We are far beyond rats in an evolutionary perspective. Furthermore " rats get rid of many insects." is an invalid point because A. Rats carry insects that harm us as well and B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born. We kill so many rats a year to further our knowledge of science and to save lives. Rats wiped out huge portions of the european population with the black plague for none because they didnt know what they were doing, becasue they are RATS.

"Mice share more than 98% DNA with humans, therefore, animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans." [3] and you said "That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans." which is simply not true. The genetic similarities of mice and men is outstandingly close, and we use mice the most when researching. You said that "95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans." Which is irrelevant considering that all of the major medicines developed in the past 5 years have used animals. Also you said, and I quote, "rats take up 85% of the animal testing population." Which is not true, I never said that, I said "Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice" I said rats and mice, meanwhile of that percentage only 18% are rats.
That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products, which we aren't debating. You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters, thats not passion thats manipulation. Also your post about the murder is completely invalid. The reason humans are worth more than the mice being tested is that we are smarter! We aren't just small minded eating machines, he are thoughtful individuals that come together and form solutions to the problems regarding our race, like cancer, and those solutions often involve the testing of animals
You said that your brother has diabetes. Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing.
1[http://www.dummies.com...]
2[http://www.history.com...]
3[http://ca-biomed.org...]
dtaylor971

Con

May I start out by saying this is one of the best debates I have ever been in and it has been a really fun experience for me. Thank you for starting this debate and we should do this again sometime!

Now, for my final arguments!

"Total federal revenues were $2.16 trillion in fiscal year 2010" I did the math and exactly 0.00629% of tax dollars."
I thought you might say that. That is only what it is costing us, the taxpayers. What is it costing the government? Think about that.

"Your pain argument is also ludicrous. You make a moral claim, but I could make a moral equilibrium by saying there pain is justified by the pain it saves us from."
I'm sorry, but that is just heartless. Do you have no pity?! There is LITERALLY a video of a monkey being stuck in a tube and dying, which was one of my links in the last article. It saves about 5 million of us and takes 100 million of them (as stated in previous arguments) that, last time I checked, is not equal.

"B. Rats in labs are bred especially for the purpose of testing, and otherwise wouldn't have been born."
Therefore, we are breeding animals just to kill them? I think not being born is a bit better than a full life of pain and misery.

"Because they are RATS."
In every round, you have made an argument against a rat. At LEAST three times. You have failed to notice that only 18% are rats, as YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID. You have made no arguments against animals that don't carry diseases and that we love. If I didn't know any better, I would say your whole argument is revolving around rats. Look, rats are animals too and deserve to be treated with at least a LITTLE respect!

"Which is irrelevant"
It is not irrelevant because failed animal testing has KILLED people! If you think so highly of humans, why have you not addressed the fact that it is killing us, too?

"Around 95% of all animals that are being tested are specially bred rats and mice"
And I corrected you with 85% of the time. Did you just scan my argument or thoroughly read it?

"That rabbit you pulled up has no sources whatsoever and as far as I know is probably used in testing hair products."
Check out the source at the bottom [1]. And the title says "Animal Testing." How am I supposed to know what "Animal Testing" means to you? And how do you know that it was hair product? It might very well be for medical purposes.

"You are simply trying to evoke emotions in the voters"
I am trying to show them what we are doing, and trying to make some points. You are free to include some pictures, also. It is good debating skills to include pictures and you can't change that.

"We aren't just small minded eating machines."
...Wow. Do you really hate animals that much? What did they ever do to you?

"Want to know what keeps him alive? Insulin. And want to know how they made that? By animal testing."
Insulin was "discovered" in 1869 by research [2]. This was far before advanced animal testing. We made a life saving product without animal testing, and in less evolved times, so why do we have to do it today? You just proved another one of my points.

I will only make one point because my opponent only made this debate three rounds, and he can't post a rebuttal. But I will end with one more point.

Argument 1: We do have some alternatives, you know! [3]
For my last argument, I will show that animal testing can be stopped and replaced with an alternative. Corrositex is one example. It is artificial skin that shows damages of products. That means it is not cruel and you don't have to use animal's skin for it. Another example and alternative to animal testing is computer modeling [4]. We are advanced, as you said, and computer modeling would both cut the costs for scientists AND save a ton of innocent animals. Many countries around the world are using these alternatives successfully. The rest of the world should follow in their footsteps.

To sum up, my debate was against animal testing overall. I posted many rebuttals and seven arguments. Now It's all up to you, the voters, to see who you want to win. Thank you for reading and God Bless!!!

[1] http://www.peta.org...
[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...
[3] http://suite101.com...
[4] http://www.newscientist.com...







Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
TorqueDorkdtaylor971Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides used a number of poor arguments, logical fallacies, and unsupported assertions. One of my favorites was Con saying that a human life might be worth two animals. Pro did provide a list showing the medicines that have been helped by animal testing, of which Con never once addressed. Con stated that humans are no more important than any other animal but provided no reasoning to believe such a statement, and even conceded the point in the second round that we have a right to advance our own kind. Con attempted to counter by saying that animals have a right to do that too, but that doesn't refute our right to look after ourselves. For sources, this has to go to Pro because not only did Con use many highly bias sources, but also mis-quoted them. Namely in R2 with the animal liberation front (sounds totally objective). Con claimed that 88% of doctors say that animal testing is useless, while the source only said that 88% said they can be misleading.
Vote Placed by 19debater19 3 years ago
19debater19
TorqueDorkdtaylor971Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It was close but con used more sources and more arguments. So he wins.