The Instigator
CrzyDrumlineChic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Is it Right for Humans to Test Animals?

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 2 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,085 times Debate No: 14732
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

CrzyDrumlineChic

Con

I would like this round to be done similar to a policy debate with similar format (inherency, Harms, solvency, advantages) It is ok for me if it is not strictly CX, however I do not really know any other debate format so this is easiest for me(:
I would like evidence to be used in the round to prevent your points. And please don't just give evidence, analyze it!(:
If anyone has any serious questions, please ask on the comments section for clarification. The Pros plan should be something similar to:
Resolved: The United States should keep its current policy on animal testing

Or something of that matter.
I would like the round to flow a little like this, ut again if any opposition arises, please ask in the comment section so we can work it out:
Round1: Presenting cases, no attacking
Round 2: Attacking cases
Round 3: Recovering attacks, while making more attacks'
Round 4: Defending
Round 5: Why we should vote pro/con (conclusion)
Again please ask if you have any questions in the comments(: I look forward to this debate!(:

I apologize, the topic box was a little too short for my entire topic, but here it is:

Is it right for humans to conduct tests and/or experiments on animals for the use of cosmetology and/or medical research?

I will define the following terms as followed:

Right:
being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

Animals:
one of the lower animals as distinguished from human beings

Tests:
(1) : a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection (2) : a basis for evaluation : criterion

Experiments:
c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law

Cosmetology:
Definition of COSMETOLOGY
: the cosmetic treatment of the skin, hair, and nails

Medical:
: of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine
2: requiring or devoted to medical treatment

Research:
1: careful or diligent search
2: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject

*All of these definitions are from MerriamWebster.com
RoyLatham

Pro

Thanks to Con for proposing this debate. It's an interesting topic.

I see nothing with Con's definitions at this point, and I will do my best to conform to the debate format Con has outlined.

I affirm "The United States should keep its current policy on animal testing." Con's title for the debate, "Is it right ..." further clarifies that the subject is the overall ethics of using animal testing, as opposed to some individual aspect of the policy. The question is posed so that either it is right to use animal testing or it not right.

Current Policy

Current policy on animal testing is summarized by Frankie Trull, president of the non-profit Foundation for Biomedical Research [1]. She is the recipient of numerous awards from scientific societies. [3] The overall objective of present policy is to determine if a new treatment will be safe and effective for use on humans. The policy is to use non-animal methods for initial screening. Treatments that pass proceed to animal testing. The policy is to select a test animal species that closely reflects the aspect of human physiology relevant to the treatment method and to treat test animals humanely. Treatments that pass animal testing then proceed to clinical trials with human subjects.

Trull says, "The vast majority of animal testing [today] is in rodents, either rats or mice. Rodents, particularly mice, have very short life spans, so you can see how a compound would react in a young animal, then in the same geriatric animal, and then in the next-generation animal, all in a time frame that is reasonable." So-called "transgenic" animals are now often used to test specific diseases; mice are bred so they always have, say, diabetes, so that large populations are not required to obtain a relative few afflicted ones. Fruit flies are notable as subjects for genetic experiments.

1. Animal Testing is Necessary for Human Health and Safety

Dr. George Poste, director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University, writes [2]:

"Opposition to all animal testing would require a life without drugs, vaccines, painkillers, anesthetics and surgery. It would demand a rejection of all federally mandated Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency tests that ensure the safe consumption of products in our homes and workplaces, ranging from the testing of components used in computers and cellphones to plastic wraps and chemical additives in our foods and drinks. In short, it would require a lifestyle far removed from that enjoyed by most people, ..."

Trull agrees there is no substitute for animal testing, [1]:

"Increasingly scientists are also looking at non-animal models to provide more and more answers. ... It's everybody's hope [that one day we could replace animal trials entirely with computer modeling]. But I don't think it'll happen during my lifetime. People in the research community will be the first to tell you they still don't know enough about how the complex living organism works in order to duplicate it."

One specific example is, "at some point, all ‘antiretroviral' (anti-AIDS) drugs will have been tested on animals for safety." [5] In that case, the only suitable test animal is the rhesus macaque.

Two-thirds of all vaccines depend upon using mice. [6]

2. Humans have a right to survival

Let's step back and ask "Do tigers have a right to kill and eat antelope, deer, boars, and yaks?" That's a silly question. Of course they have the right to consume other animals, because they must to so to survive. Also, the yak has a right to fight back, perhaps killing the tiger to survive. The right to survive extends to protecting offspring. My point is that rights derive from the nature of animals, and in the case of humans from the nature of humans. If animals or humans had no natural instinct to survive, the species would die out, to be replaced by a species that has the instinct to survive.

Certainly humans less right to survive than other species. So went it comes to survival, humans get to trump rats and fruit flies in the battle for survival.

3. It's better to have lived than not

What would happen if animals were no used for testing. Would the test rats instead live carefree lives eating cheese, spreading bubonic plague, and doing whatever else rats do? No, test animals are mostly bred solely for use in testing. So if there were no testing, the test animals would have no life at all., as they would never have been born in the first place. In any case, life in the wild is not idyllic. It usually ends as a predator's lunch. Test animals do not live forever, but their life is likely to be longer and less painful as a test animal than as a wild animal. Test animals under current policy, live in humane conditions, something not assured in the wild.

"Domestic rats live about 2 to 3.5 years (Pass and Freeth 1993). In a survey of pet rat lifespans in the UK, the average lifespan was 21.6 months, and 95% percent had died by age 3 years (Clark 2004). In contrast, wild rats living in the wild tend to live for less than one year: 95% of wild rats die before age 1 year (Davis 1948)." [4]

According to what is implied in [1], lab rodents generally live a full life span because treatment effects are studied throughout the life span, including old age. No doubt there are experiments that sacrifice t animal early the life span, but that's the exception.

If one insists on viewing the situation from the rat's view point, it's better to have lived than not lived and better to have lived longer in a lab than shorter in the wild. I don't think the viewpoint of the rat is the important one --I strongly favor humans over rats and fruit flies-- but if one insists on the rat's viewpoint, current policy is nonetheless affirmed.

Summary

The current US policy on animal testing is right because humans have a right to survival, and there is currently no substitute for animal testing in the development of new drugs and treatment.

The resolution is affirmed.

--------------------------------

1. How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us? http://www.time.com...

2. Animal testing a necessary research tool, for now http://www.azcentral.com...

3. Frankie Trull http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. How old is a rat in human years? http://www.ratbehavior.org...

5. HIV drugs, vaccines and animal testing http://www.avert.org...

6. Mouse in Science:VACCINES http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
CrzyDrumlineChic

Con

Sorry, I can't continue this debate, Im grounded:( Sorry, only 16. But maybe we can debate this again some day, but if you want to, you can debate this with someone else by like copying my page or whatever, or making your own(: Just in case you really wanted to debate! Sorry for the inconvenience, I was looking forward to debating this:/
RoyLatham

Pro

Too bad. Some other time.
Debate Round No. 2
CrzyDrumlineChic

Con

CrzyDrumlineChic forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

Con is unavailable, so we are just waiting for this thing to end.
Debate Round No. 3
CrzyDrumlineChic

Con

CrzyDrumlineChic forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

Con is unavailable, so we are just waiting for this thing to end.
Debate Round No. 4
CrzyDrumlineChic

Con

CrzyDrumlineChic forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Pro

My opponent claimed to be grounded and unable to debate, but was online and posting to the forums while forfeiting. This is bad conduct.

Pro only offered definitions and rules for debate, and did not make even a prima fascia case. My arguments were sound and went unanswered. I provided solid references to the need for animal testing to save human lives, and that there is no effective substitute.

The resolution is affirmed.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
That's too bad. I was just getting interested in this.
Posted by CrzyDrumlineChic 6 years ago
CrzyDrumlineChic
Sorry, I can't continue this debate, Im grounded:( Sorry, only 16. But maybe we can debate this again some day, but if you want to, you can debate this with someone else by like copying my page or whatever, or making your own(: Just in case you really wanted to debate! Sorry for the inconvenience, I was looking forward to debating this:/
Posted by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
I love watching Roy debate
Posted by CrzyDrumlineChic 6 years ago
CrzyDrumlineChic
Ya sre(: Just please give a roadmap. Sorry, Im a CXer at heat, but I can keep up(: But I have school tomorrow so if it takes me a while to reply thats why.
Posted by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
I'd like to take this but I don't necessarily wanna follow your outline of what we have to do in each round. Can I not do exactly that and take this and not make you upset?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
CrzyDrumlineChicRoyLathamTied
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 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: Pro honestly did win all of the categories; this was a waste of space. Con should not have instigated this debate to begin with
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
CrzyDrumlineChicRoyLathamTied
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: Con forfeited and had poorer grammar. Roy had a well-sourced and untouched argument.