The Instigator
rightandwrong
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
CloudApex
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals

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 5 votes the winner is...
rightandwrong
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 56374
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

rightandwrong

Con

Testing cosmetics on animals is cruel and unncessary.
CloudApex

Pro

My opponent has the Burden of Proof for the proposition since the testing of cosmetics on animals exists as an established system for testing the safety and hypoallergenic properties of products. [1]

First argument:

There is no viable alternative to animal testing. If we do not test our products on animals prior to human use and consumption, the humans will instead be in danger of potentially toxic or virulent chemicals.

In addition: Humans of are of more functional and moral value than animals. Even if you don't agree with this sentiment, it is a publicly held opinion. I do not see encaged human beings, nor do I see them scurrying around scavenging for food. Clearly, society values humans in a higher position on the moral hierarchy than animals.

Second argument:

Companies go to their full extent to minimize the amount of deaths of test subjects and often the animals are exempted from testing scott-free. The animals also have high immunity to the chemicals than humans because they are exposed to foreign chemicals when foraging for food and searching for prey.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
rightandwrong

Con

First argument:

There is no viable alternative to animal testing. If we do not test our products on animals prior to human use and consumption, the humans will instead be in danger of potentially toxic or virulent chemicals.

My opponent states that there is no viable alternative to testing cosmetics on animals, that is false. There are many alternatives to animal testing. For example.

EpiSkin-(a model of reconstructed human epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models that predict skin corrosivity and irritation

Here are two websites that list other alternatives.

http://www.neavs.org...

http://www.humanesociety.org...



Companies go to their full extent to minimize the amount of deaths of test subjects and often the animals are exempted from testing scott-free.


I’de like to see where you getting your information? Companies do not go to their “full extent” to minimize death.


The animals also have high immunity to the chemicals than humans because they are exposed to foreign chemicals when foraging for food and searching for prey.

That is an absurd statement, again, I’de like to see where your getting your information? That makes no sense what so ever and also, what are these foreign chemicals there exposed to. And please explain how foraging for food and searching for prey gives animals immunity from the chemicals there being injected with.

http://www.neavs.org...

http://www.humanesociety.org...

CloudApex

Pro

Epi-skin remains as a hyper-expensive and un-commerciable idea and does not by any means guarantee the veracity of the results. There is no synthetic replica of animal tissue and how that translates into human diagnostic symptoms when exposed to the chemicals. Computer generated data is based entirely on visual data and visually integrated scanners. To draw conclusions and ostensibly objective conclusions solely on the basis of empirical data is ridiculous. My opponent oversimplifies the complex issues and symptoms that can be aroused from harmful toxins and chemicals in the products and concedes by identifying 'skin corrosivity' and 'irritation' as the sole concerns for products. I'd also like to reinstate that humans are not composed predominantly of skin and even if this alternative were to be commercialized it only addresses a small issue within a large one. What happens to flesh, organs and muscle damage - perhaps chronic? According to your logic, we are to disband the remainder of our human bodies and subsist completely on epithelial cells.

In addition, I'd like to point out my opponent's plagiarism, which is equivalent to a forfeit in the debate. My opponent enlisted a segment from the following website without sourcing it directly. http://www.neavs.org...

Therefore, I am not in any way obligated to respond to his second rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
rightandwrong

Con

First of all, I was giving an example from the text of the website to show that there are alternatives to animal testing. I'm not saying that EpiSkin is the only alternative. That is why I said in the begining, "for example". If you read the entire arcticles you will see that there are many alternatives that are less costly and more accurate.

EpiSkin-(a model of reconstructed human epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models that predict skin corrosivity and irritation

I wasn't making those sentences my own writing and apologize. I also put the website right under the writing.

I still would like you to answer my questions becuase your statements in round one are baseless remarks.
CloudApex

Pro

CloudApex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
rightandwrong

Con

I would like to make it abundantly clear to the audience that my opponent forfeited because he couldn't explain his absurd statements. My opponent is obviously not well versed in this issue.
CloudApex

Pro

CloudApex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
rightandwrong

Con

My opponent obviously forfeited because he couldn't explain his reasons for why we should test cosmetics on animals.
CloudApex

Pro

CloudApex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
CloudApex
You had BoP but you did not fulfill it, the debate is skewed.
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
CloudApex
But were devoid of any expansion of reasoning.
Posted by rightandwrong 2 years ago
rightandwrong
My opponent gave unsourced reasons to continue testing cosmetics on animals. My claims were realistic.
Posted by rightandwrong 2 years ago
rightandwrong
Where's the evidence that EpiSkin is not viable?
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
BoP is on you. Is this your first debate?
Posted by rightandwrong 2 years ago
rightandwrong
I wouldn't list unviable alternatives. Where's the evidence that EpiSkin is not viable?
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Wanna bet?

"My opponent states that there is no viable alternative to testing cosmetics on animals, that is false. There are many alternatives to animal testing. For example."
-Con.

You forget the fact that you didn't provide any VIABLE alternatives. You just listed alternatives, but did not explain their viability, while Pro explained why episkin or w/e is not viable.

Sorry buddy, you lost by underestimating your opponent.
Posted by rightandwrong 2 years ago
rightandwrong
Empiren does'nt know what he's talking about.
Posted by rightandwrong 2 years ago
rightandwrong
Yeah
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
CloudApex
I concede, they may have been erroneous statements.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by debatingequality 2 years ago
debatingequality
rightandwrongCloudApexTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CloudApex said weird stuff.
Vote Placed by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
rightandwrongCloudApexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con's argument was not further discussed beyond him posting a link and reading from said link. Nor did the link explain the cost-effective model of the alternatives. Although pro did forfeit, Con did not make his case strong enough to provide a reason for his stance. Due to the nature of this debate, it is clear that Con needed to make his case fully otherwise he would lose. He did not do that.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
rightandwrongCloudApexTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
rightandwrongCloudApexTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. While Con's lack of quotation marks to indicate he was pulling a quote, it was an EXTREMELY short quote, and he did cite the source beneath. That's not plagiarism--and he copped to it when called on it, explaining himself. On the other hand, Pro forfeited multiple rounds. Con, I would urge you not to make statements in the manner you did as to your opponent's reasons for forfeiting, just because a judge may, if the statements are harsh enough, deem yours as worthy of conduct. I don't think that's the case here, though. As to arguments: Con presented a case. Pro's rebuttal was unsourced assertion to the contrary, which is insufficient to wreck Con's case. Thus, Con's arguments stand and fulfill the BoP. S&G and Sources didn't seem to warrant scoring. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by TheBunnyAssassin 2 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
rightandwrongCloudApexTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I like cosmetics.