The Instigator
debate12345678
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
michaelpowers153
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is animal testing a good thing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 77658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

debate12345678

Con

Animal testing is a form of animal cruelty. Imagine yourself, cowering in a cage as you feel the sharp jab of the needle. Your vision clouds over....as you slip into the void. This is life - and death of one of the many animals receiving illegal experimentation. How can you inflict upon another living being what you would not want inflicted upon yourself? Monkeys restrained by neck and hand shackles struggle against the inevitable drug sweeping through there system. You might say that testing has an equal success rate. If humans think that it will be successful, why don't they take it themselves?
michaelpowers153

Pro

animals should be used for testing instead of using a human that will take their life away from their loved one just take a rat and test on a rat if you test a rat then the rat will die and not the human that possibly has family do you want to be responsible for taking a father or mother or even son or daughter away from there loving family
Debate Round No. 1
debate12345678

Con

It's not just rats who are being tested. Pet monkeys, birds, and dogs are being put to death in the name of science. And you have also assumed that I say that humans ought to be tested instead of animals. Actually, I would prefer that illegal testing is banned altogether. Instead, simulations should test the viability and then it can be administered to volunteers and the terminally ill who have no reason to continue living and wish to be euthanized.
michaelpowers153

Pro

I must agree with you there should be a simulation but it needs to be tested at one point either on a human or an animal I think that it should be test on animals after it has been simulated and the FDA has approved of the drug if the simulation fails it should be tested in a different way if all ways fail it shouldn't make it to the testing stage if the simulation succeeds then the drug should move to animal testing if the animal testing works then it should move onto human testing
Debate Round No. 2
debate12345678

Con

Let's hypothesize that the simulation works, yet the drug is actually harmful, although you do not know that. Proceed with animal testing, and you kill a healthy animal. Test the terminally ill who wish to die anyway, you grant them an escape from pain and suffering if the drug kills them. Rather than killing healthy, life-filled animals, wouldn't you rather save a human from endless suffering?
michaelpowers153

Pro

yes I would agree if the terminally ill patient should be able to test the drug but if there are no terminally ill patients that want to end their life then they should be able to test on animals and maybe they only have a certain amount of animals a year and if they don't they have to find out how to test it some other way
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 1 year ago
sara_ann_dee
Who do I agree with before the debate: CON ~ this is based on my opinion

Who do I agree with after the debate: CON ~ this is based on my opinion and what I took out of the debate.

Who had better conduct: TIED ~ both sides clearly explained and made counterarguments towards each other. They were respectful to each other and even agreed with each other in some areas. It is rare to find that on most debates. They both carried the debate out in a polite and mature manner.

Who had better spelling and grammar: CON ~ PRO failed to use capital letters and ending marks in his arguments - which CON did not have an issue with - therefore, this part goes to CON.

Who had more convincing arguments: CON ~ CON made a valuable point about people who volunteer to test out drugs instead of doing it to animals. While PRO attempted to make a counterargument for this point - he did not use evidence to back up his response, making his rebuttal unconvincing. This was a major aspect in this debate which the CON side made more convincing - therefore this part goes to CON. CON also posed good quality rebuttals to PRO's claims - which PRO failed to do in return - proving more why CON takes the vote for this section.

Who had more reliable sources: TIED ~ Both sides did not include any citations or evidence to back up their arguments. Therefore, it is not fair to choose a winner for this category when nobody fit the credential.
No votes have been placed for this debate.