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

Animals should be used for Medical Research

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: 2/16/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,127 times Debate No: 46078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Albert Sabin who developed the polio vaccine once stated "Without Animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year." Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough throughout the past decade.
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. ( )

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. ( )

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. ( ) 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.


I am going to keep my side of this rather short. How about, since humans fall under the category of animals, let's use humans for medical research as well. Why wouldn't you? The amount of risk there is? Well what about the risk for animals? Why, since when is a human life worth more than an animal's life? Well no duh it is to us, because WE'RE freaking HUMANS. But that doesn't mean that's truly the case. Humans are not more valuable to the earth, only to themselves. If we killed one of ourselves trying to do research, there would be a big uproar, and the family of the dead ones would want revenge! But animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and all other X Factor animals actually feel for their family and their young ones. They have a since of care and love and passion. They would lose something, too. Why are we willing to break the hearts of one family that might not walk with their backs straight up? Why is the fact that fur and a different walking stance mean a difference in how we treat one or the other? If some species above our heads took us for it's own use, we would have a big uproar, but because we are at the top we can do whatever the hell we want, can't we?
Debate Round No. 1


Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential."

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?


Who is to say animals don't have the same rights as people do? A few thousand years ago, women had absolutely no rights whatsoever (and this is still the case now in parts of the world), a few hundred years ago Blacks didn't have any rights, a few hundred years ago in the United States, only rich white land owners had rights, gays didn't have all the rights until a few decades ago, and all those people mentioned, up to a certain point had no rights to certain medical treatments. For crying out loud, dogs had more rights then some people did 100 years ago in some areas. And horses. Why are we so much better? Why are dogs and horses so much better? Who dictates who has rights and who doesn't?
Debate Round No. 2


ThatDopeDude forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the last round. Since my opponent was unable to argue, I am unable to argue back.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by druminboy918 2 years ago
What animals were the superior race.... would you like it if they did tests on us?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years 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:31 
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.