Animals should be used for Medical Research
Debate Rounds (3)
I feel compelled to affirm today"s resolution that animals should be used for medical research because animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living whole body system.
Contention 1: Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments.
The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Imagine how many more possible medical breakthroughs that could be discovered with animal experimentation.
An example of a life saving treatment discovered from animal testing is the Polio Vaccine. The Polio Vaccine tested on animals, reduced the global amount of those with polio from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. ( animal-testing.procon.org )
Chris Abee, director of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees" and says that the use of animal research is are "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the united states. ( animal-testing.procon.org )
A poll taken in 2011 by the science journal Nature showed that nearly 90% of biomedical scientists agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.
Contention 2: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus. (animal-testing.procon.org ) Isnt it reasonable to test on animals if its gonna save more animals?
Without Animal testing, many species would soon become extinct. Koalas, aravaged by chlamydia are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animals disappearance. Without animal testing, we could soon lose many species such as the Koala.
Even the American Veterinary Medical Association endorses animal testing.
Contention 3: Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans.
Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans.
Every mammal including humans have the same set of organs such as the heart, kidneys, and lungs that function in the same way as humans.
Because mammals and humans are so similar, they are open to many of the same conditions and illnesses as human such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have moral judgment or cognitive ability that humans do and because of this every culture recorded throughout human history has treated them differently than humans. If we grant animals rights, all humans would therefore have to become vegetarians, and hunting would be illegal.
In today"s round I have shown why Animal Experimentation is essential for progress in Medical Technology due to the fact that Animal testing has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing, and that Animals are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to humans.
For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that progress ( value) should be upheld and we should affirm the resolution that animals should be used for medical research. Clearly we must affirm today"s resolution.
A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?
ThatDopeDude forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost points in conduct for forfeiting the last round. However, overall, I have to say Pro won. Pro made several points in round one that were not addressed by Con. Con did not address Pro's contentions. Con merely focused on the statement Pro made about animals having less rights than humans, yet Con didn't even properly refute Pro's argument that animals have less rights. Con talked about the past, saying that in the past, some animals have even more rights than some humans. This means Con concedes that currently, they don't have as much rights as humans. Also, a note to Pro: you should not base your arguments off of polls because they are unreliable.
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.