The Instigator
DevDave
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
demimorin
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Is the use of animals in scientific research acceptable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
DevDave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,226 times Debate No: 45305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

DevDave

Pro

Advancement in medical science has increased the average life span of a human being. THis advancement would not have been possible without the relentless efforts put in by the medical researchers. But the big question arises is whether it is justifiable to use animals for research purpose.?I certainly feel it is acceptable for the very fact that it would have been impossible to test various medicines if testing was disallowed on animals. Testing of medicines is only possible on livings beings to understand about the advantages, effects of a certain medicine.

Many animals die during research purposes but the discovery of a particular medicine saves the lives of millions of human beings. Science would have never given us the cure for many diseases like polio, jaundice, cholera etc which were once considered to be fatal. The death of animals during research cannot be called as a murder it is a sacrifice for the well being of the entire mankind. If research on animal is wrong and unjustifiable then the same analogy would apply in the case of wars where soldiers sacrifice their lives so that the rest of the nation can sleep peacefully.It is the underlying principle of the society that certain things have to be sacrificed for a bigger cause.

Thus i believe that use of animals in scientific research is totally acceptable.
demimorin

Con

It might be true that the use of animal testing does provide benefits to us humans, however don't animals have to as much of a right to life and happiness as we do? No one would wants to be locked up being tested on everyday relentlessly. An animal can't express how it feels so it makes it that much easier because we don't know. They could be in excruciating pain, but hey what do we care as long as it benefits us. No, that's wrong and immoral, it's pure torture to the animal. Being humans have so much more defense mechanisms to defend ourselves, but who's there to defend the animals? Everyone should put themselves in their position. Animal testing just goes to show how greedy and self righteous we've become in this world, and how much we abuse the power we have.
Debate Round No. 1
DevDave

Pro

If scientific research on animals is not conducted then it would not be next to impossible to find cure for fatal diseases in future like cancer, AIDs etc. Decades back diseases like polio, jaundice were considered fatal today a cure is possible only because scientists have tested their theories on animals to find a possible cure. So i strongly believe that scientific research on animals is justifiable
demimorin

Con

Regardless of the past, all we can do is go into the future with our heads on straight, and animal testing is and always will be selfish.
Debate Round No. 2
DevDave

Pro

The scientific community at present does not have credible alternative for medical testing , in that case the only option to avoid millions of human beings dying with a fatal disease is only through animal testing and that cannot be stopped.
demimorin

Con

demimorin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by UltimateRussian 3 years ago
UltimateRussian
DevDavedemimorinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Morin explained her argument thoroughly because unlike pro who restated the same idea that the sacrifice of a few animals to save millions is worth it over and over, however morons points were very intriguing and convinced me.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
DevDavedemimorinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost by forfeit. Her arguments were irrelevant to the subject at hand although it could have been if she were to explain/elaborate as to why being selfish, greedy, and self-righteous is not acceptable. She bases some of her points on doubt, which goes both ways towards the debate. She also made a few grammatical errors.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
DevDavedemimorinTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF