The Instigator
ZR0D
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Animals should be used for 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 1 vote the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,299 times Debate No: 21245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

ZR0D

Pro

Many animal welfare groups stand strongly against animal testing claiming that they have rights just like our own, but would any of them actually lay down their life for their pet or favourite zoo animal? And if we did ban animal testing how else would we test our vaccinations and countless other crucial experiments?
FourTrouble

Con

Thanks you, Pro. This debate should be fun.

In response to the two questions Pro poses in Round 1:

1) No, they would probably not lay down their life for their pet, but they would also probably not lay down their life for anyone. There is a reason that killing someone in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of killing someone to steal their money. The difference lies in the intention: in one case you kill someone to save your own life. Killing animals, pets, whatever, makes sense when there is a direct threat to your own life.

2) Pro's second question already presupposes that testing our "vaccinations" and other "crucial experiments" on animals works. Before we can ask if their are alternatives to using animals for testing, we have to know whether testing on animals is relevant to human health in the first place.

Of course, the answer is that animal testing has not been relevant to advancements in medicine or human health. In an article published in the esteemed "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine," the very notion itself was debunked. In the article, it was pointed out that "animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses."

Furthermore, there is the obvious fact that animal biology is very different from human biology, and therefore, is unreliable. The FDA has noted that 92 percent of drugs shown to be safe and effective animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous to humans.

It has been shown that physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. The point is, using animals for our experiments has no medical value for us, because it is simply unreliable. Animal biology is different from ours.
Debate Round No. 1
ZR0D

Pro

ZR0D forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

My opponent forfeited. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ZR0D

Pro

ZR0D forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

Vote Con, I guess.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Animals squealing > humans dying from medicine
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Animal testing is ridiculous. Most animals can't even hold a pencil!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
ZR0DFourTroubleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit...