Have you signed the Stop Vivisection petition?
Debate Rounds (3)
So I was first brought here because of my religion arguing issues, but then as a active fighter for animal rights was thrilled to see some topics about that here too.
I am new here, so first, greetings to all.
Okay, now to the 'thing'
I'm sure you have talked about it on debate.org, about the campaign called STOP VIVISECTION, where us, activists were trying to reach 1.000.000 signs to stop animal testing. We were collecting signs here on the following link:
So I wanna know,
have you signed it?
if not, why not?
If you haven't seen the petition, would you signed it, if yes/not, why?
Thank you for your answers! ;) xoxo, Mrs. Artpop.
I am for animal testing. I have not signed the petition for this reason. I would like to know your reasons for wanting to stop animal testing, as of right now you do not have a argument. All you have is a website.
Anyway, I shall get started.
First of all, vivisectors, as the humans who do those kinds of experiments are called, are very cruel.
Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day's work for vivisectors... I can explain to you why animal testing really is not necessary. Especially for cosmetics use!
First, it's called bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans AND, scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests.
And second of all, people don't need need another eyeliner, hand soap, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide SOOO BADLY, that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.
It is just not right. Animals are treated like property and NOT as a living being. That's what bothers me.
Here are examples where animal testing is helping us tremendously: Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise. Herceptin (a humanized mouse protein) has helped to increase the survival rate of those with breast cancer; it could not have been attained without animal research in mice. Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago.Animal research has helped develop modern vaccines including those against Polio, TB, Meningitis and, recently, the human papillomavirus (HPV) which has been linked to cervical cancer. The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s. Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals. Dogs, cats and primates altogether account for less than 0.2% of research animals.
As you can see, animal testing is essential for the survival of human beings. Without it thousands of people would still be dying from things like; smallpox, breast cancer, and AIDS.
And come on, AIDS, cancer? Medical science has developed the cure already, and I don't think animals helped there, but to put those medicines or techniques on market, wouldn't be a smart money-making move. Medicine needs sick people, not healthy ones. Especially in America. It is all about capitalism.
And now, 500.000 animals die per year, just because of vivisection (which did not help get cancer cure, or AIDS, or anything like that, if you think so, google the word VIVISECTION), because of cosmetics, drugs and cigarettes. Btw, cigarettes are tested on animals too ;) such as dogs, cats,.. And if you still think that's right, I don't want to argue with you anymore because I don't appreciate you at all.
Have a nice evening.
BEaPATRIOT forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This resolution could have been phrased better (it wasn't really phrased as a debatable topic, as Ragnar noted), but did turn into a debate, at least. While I'm not a big fan of Pro's conspiracy arguments in the last round (that we have a cure for cancer and AIDS that's being held back)--conduct is clearly warranted for Con's forfeit.
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.