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

Is animal testing justified?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 72438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Animal testing one of the most misunderstood area in the modern day society. It is associated with torture, cruelty and brutality. But this far from what animal testing is, animal testing is a method of research, in order to advance further and learn more. Furthermore, be researching on the animals we learn more about the animal itself. therefore in the long term it will benefit the species and us simultaneously.


I.... Accept!
Debate Round No. 1


Animal testing help to finding ways that can save lives of animals and humans by testing lifesaving drugs and processes, helping the scientists find a cure for certain diseases by studying these animals. Open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgery and heart transplantation are some of the procedures that came into existence by carrying out experimentation on dogs. Insulin for diabetes, lifesaving antibiotics, has been made by experimenting on animals. Contagious diseases like smallpox, measles, chickenpox, rubella, polio, rabies, mumps, etc. were brought into control due to vaccines made by carrying out experiments on animals. The breakthroughs that we have made have made us the most successful civilisation ever known to us. Without this urge we would not be human, there would be no difference between us and animals.


Thanks Pro,

Perhaps at one time animal testing was justified, however thanks to mankind's technological advances there is no longer a reason as to why we need this unnecessary suffering. In the past, we as humans have had to suffer empathizing with our test subjects the animals, this might as well be equivocated to the abuse of ones emotions. No normal person feels good about seeing a dog get lynched or a cat set on fire. These are absolutely cruel. To preform a test on an animal which may result in similar suffering can no longer be justified.

-Animals have rights-

All 50 of states of America have laws against animal cruelty [1]. This is evidence that humans indeed oppose animal suffering of any kind. Animal testing has been permitted by the government because they believe that humans take precedence over animals, similarly to how animals generally take precedence of insects. Since doing these cruel experiments will end up saving humans lives it is often seen as "justified" to harm these animals.However, it is only justified by the fact that there are no other options, the only thing that could similarly simulate a humans anatomy was an animals.
Thanks to technology though, we are no longer required to use such cruel methods.


The alternative methods of testing today have not been perfected by any means. This could very well be said for animal testing though since they fail to replicate a human simulation. In fact, there can be no improvements to animal testing because they can't be human. The scientific community ought to strive for a system in which accurate results can be gathered.
"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies." [2]
The only hope to achieve accurate results is to actually test these drugs an a human simulated environment. If resources were dedicated to them, computer simulations would be the ideal method of drug testing.

The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) offers similar suggestions for alternative testing methods on their website.

"-In vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures
-Computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials
-Computer models and simulations
-Stem cell and genetic testing methods
-Non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
-Microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)"[3].

-Costs Testing-
Any money put forth towards animal testing, ought to be given to technological advancement instead. As I explained in my last contention, animals make for poor test subjects. Using our resources towards a cause that will achieve accurate results ought to be made the priority.
"Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on nonhuman animals, and in 2012, NIH budgeted nearly $30 billion for research and development."[4]
Technology advances at a rapid rate [5], if we would dedicate the necessary resources towards computer simulation or stem cell research and achieve what we set out to do. Animal testing would serve no purpose.

Good luck to Pro!

Debate Round No. 2


Romy forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romy 1 year ago
baka mesu...a ho
Posted by Romy 1 year ago
I would like to correct you there. Suffering without a purpose is wrong. However these animals suffer and by doing so saves millions of life's, not just human also other animals too. As I said before there is a clear limit to what computer and machines can do. Machines are not living so it will be exceptionally hard to use them to find diseases which are found only in living things. Please read my arguments, before contradicting.
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
You miss the point that any kind of suffering is wrong. You also miss the point that animal testing isn't a sufficient drug testing method and could easily be replaced with developed artificial organs and human anatomy simulations on computers..
Posted by Romy 1 year ago
When you can't argue, you don't accuse... You should accept. That is the signs of a good debater.
Posted by Romy 1 year ago
Of course I didn't
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
Someone didn't read the debate.
Posted by Romy 1 year ago
sorry I missed the last round (I was away) but I read the cons and I noticed that you said that there is no longer need for animal testing, implying, that we are developed to the limit . I do not agree with you there, if humans were to have that attitude from the beginning. we would not have risen up to be the most successful civilisation known to man. As a result we would be still living in caves.

"a dog get lynched or a cat set on fire". I am sorry Mr Kozu but these are definitely not examples of animal testing. Besides as I had said earlier on only 7% of all animals being tested on are actually harmed. so I find it hard to understand how a dog getting lynched is anything to do with animal testing...hmmm....

You have rightly given alternatives to animal testing however these are mostly machines. machines are built by humans, so they are never going to be like one ( at least not in a long time). we cannot study emotions which are expressed by the animals. You also mentioned stem cells, as advanced as they are I am sorry to say that they will not be able to show us how the human BODY will react to certain drugs.

Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on non-human animals, and in 2012, NIH budgeted nearly $30 billion for research and development. yes this is true but this is also true... you can't but a price tag on life. Besides, these "non-human animals", would most likely, end up on your dinner plate or would be tortured to death by people who hate rodent. Animal testing put a value and purpose in the lives of these animals. was that wrong?

Nicely fought Kozu, now it is the votes which count.
Good Luck!
Posted by pixelmagic 1 year ago
The scope of this debate is too broad for me. This really depends on multiple factors, such as the species and well being of the animals being used, what kind of testing is being done, what the benefits of the testing are likely to be, the likeliness of success in the study... etc.

Also this is a debate on ethics, not science. Science does not deal with ethics. You cannot quantify and test ethics; it also depends what theory of ethics you buy in to.
Posted by DiverseSynergy 1 year ago
What if by cutting up a rat and putting toxins on it you saved a million human lives by curing a disease? I think that is what the OP is driving at. Great debate suggestion. I'm also pro, and I'm rubbish at arguing the opposite of my own stance, so I'll just be voting on this one rather than debating.
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
Animal testing involves cutting rats up and putting toxins on them. The more you know
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro.