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

Criminal 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 64987
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




While the death penalty is nice and all, what good is it to just kill the criminal? How does that right the wrong done to the society?
When we test new chemicals and such, however, we take the innocent lives of naive creatures and do all sorts of horrendous things to them.
Well, let's take away the animals and put in the horrible criminals.


What you are pretty much arguing is that torture is acceptable, which is an incredibly sadistic approach. Two wrongs do not make a right, and testing on humans is just as barbaric as whatever that human has done.

The lethal injection is made to be as painless as possible to the criminal. A lot of the time, the criminal is already terrified and horrified at the idea that they're going to die in just as much cowardly terror as the people they murdered. Why prolong that torture for some sick vengeful pleasure?

Sure, we'd save a lot of animals, but humans have ambitions, dreams, family, friends, emotions, memories....

And yes, I'm well aware that animals are much the same and I'm NOT supporting animal testing in anyway, but there is a big difference between humans and animals.

What is that difference? One is sentient, the other isn't.

Despite what they may have done, however despicable a murderer is, they're still a human being and all human beings deserve a quick death.
Debate Round No. 1


Humans do have rights, but when a man, per say, rapes, he has lost those rights. Now what he deserves is death, but my point is not based on ethics. My point is on the positive/negative effect on society. Let's say scientists make a breakthrough in medicine by testing on that rapist, but it leaves him dead. He got what he deserved, and now many lives will be saved, curbing the negative impact he had on the progress of society by his actions.


Medical breakthroughs can be made through animal testing as well, without the need to torture humans.

One can argue that a person loses their rights and get what they deserve when being tested on like that for murder, however if you were in the seat of someone who was to be tested, you'd change your tune fairly quickly. You would stop saying that those people had no rights, and you or I would most likely plead for yourself under the argument that you did have rights.

On top of that, I think that the fear experienced when on death row would be enough. The deathrow patients would get to experience the exact same fear that their victims did without the aspect of torture or pain, and the quick death ensures that they keep some of their dignity and that not as many people complain. Humans have a right to live, and that right is already taken away when a person is put on death row. I don't see the reason to torture them on top of that.

To sum up, the death penalty is already punishment enough, psychologically. We shouldn't take humans and use them as resources to help the world in a way that can already be done through easier and more moral methods.
Debate Round No. 2


What easier and more moral methods? Experimentation on a biological creature is often necessary to achieve scientific goals. Most likely if I was in that position I would say I have rights, but they shouldn't care that I plead rights. I've done enough to rid me of those, and on death row I would be thinking different yes. Doesn't matter. Besides, death isn't always the outcome. You could argue that they would live in pain and shame, but they knew what they were getting into. Now, if they were severely mentally unstable, of course not. But you have to be somewhat unstable to commit such a crime anyway.

Thanks for the argument, win or lose, I always enjoy myself a good debate.


Testing on animals, rather then humans is more moral and easier. People don't make such an issue about, even though it is wrong. In the end, theres not going to be a way to make breakthroughs without something or someone getting hurt- testing on animals just violates less rights and ethics.

No problem, I'm always up for a debate, even if I haven't been on this site that long.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Spike117 1 year ago
Ones that did horrible things, like molesters and murderers.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
I agree with your attitude to animals. But what criminals would you subject to such treatment?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. con makes good argument talking about how criminals already have enough punishment with the Death Penalty, but pro points out that criminals are much more immoral than innocent animals. I felt like con was arguing a rigged resolution. Obviously a man who committed felonies deserve testing more than an animal. Nevertheless, good job con.