The Instigator
GeorgiaAshley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ike-Jin-Park
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Medical testing on animals does more good than harm.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Ike-Jin-Park
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,873 times Debate No: 27714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Medical testing on animals does more good than bad. yes, this statement is, in my eyes, quite true. If we don't test animals we won't know what is wrong with them and therefore we won't be able to improve and or maintain their health (if of course they are sick).
Ike-Jin-Park

Con

Hello GeorgiaAshely. Nice to meet you.

First of all, I believe there is a misunderstanding on the topic. The Instigator seems to believe that the topic is discussing whether we should use medical means to carry out experiments to treat animals. But the term "medical testing on animals" is generally accepted as, testing newly made medical substances to assure quality or safety of the medicines before they are sold.

Now, I would like to begin developing on my newly suggested and rather accurate definition of the topic.

INTRODUCTION

On this round, I will introduce a point regarding animal rights and the purpose of carrying out experiments on animals (having their rights completely forsaken) when there are alternatives. On my second round, I will show what medical testing on animals in laboratories really is like, realistically and is often abused. On the third round, I will dig deeper into the topic. I will identify the clashes of the debate, analyze each clash into deeper level and finally, show how my points outweigh the Instigator"s.

ARGUMENTATION

There are things called animal rights. Animals are entitled of life just like we are. We do not have rights to exploit animal species just for our own benefit. When medical experiments are carried out to animals, usually sample animals are injected of medicine samples which has unknown effect. The medicine might as well have fatal side-effects. The medicine might as well be poisonous. Testing unknown substances on innocent animal is immoral, evil and hypocritical in a society that emphasizes importance of life.

We should not consider animal testing similar with butchery. Those animals that are butchered for meat in fact lead a satisfying life in an idealistic environment. They are well fed and are provided of safe and proper shelter. Some ranches even turn on classical music for cows to decrease their stress. As animals, they need not to worry about their safety and food which is the biggest problem that animal species face. When those animals mature after living an idealistic life, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimum pain as possible. These days, animals are electrified with electricity at about 300~500V. This inflicts minimal pain and takes the life at a split second. These animals are born to be eaten anyways. They live a worriless life until their fast and unexpected death. Act of butchery cannot possibly be compared with animal testing. Sample animals suffer excruciating pain until they die off and are incinerated.

If there was no alternative, everyone would have admitted that animal testing is a necessary devil. However, it is absolutely untrue. Alternatives for animal testing exist and still are being developed. There are cases where cultured cells were used to carry out experiments. There were successful experiments that used human skin sample to perform safety assurance experiment for cosmetics, for skin corrosion and irritation (MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent). Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be done on donated human blood, on testing its effects and interaction with immune system cells. This is the source where I am coming from. .

"Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can "transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods."
"Innovative biotechnology firm H"rel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals.
"VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed.
"Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc.
"Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals.
"Antibodies"which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice"can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells.
"A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body.
"Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education."
Take a look at how many alternatives can be made. The same site also added that those are "just a few examples". If there is a will, there is a way. If we just try to develop and look for ways to find an alternative, we can do it and we did.

SUMMARY

Experimenting substance samples on animals is inhumane. It undeniably inflicts insufferable pain to animals and is very hypocritical when we value so much among our society, the morals that emphasize importance of life. Such ridiculous tradition on inflicting pain on innocent animals can even be abolished with the help of modern science. There exists plenty alternatives. Human skin cell imitations, computer simulations, MRIs and donated human blood are just few examples of functioning alternative. When there is an alternative, there is no need to carry out animal testing that violates animal rights in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

GeorgiaAshley forfeited this round.
Ike-Jin-Park

Con

Round 2

Before I start elaborating on my second argument, I would first like to address my disappointment towards my opponent. Forfeiting is not the spirit of debate and I expect a better treatment than ignorance to my article that I spent effort on writing. On Debate.org, I have noticed some cases where no more information was posted after a concession. But I would like to proceed on elaborating my case regardless.



ARGUMENTATION

Even if we decide to forsake morality and go for the practical measure, animal testing still should not occur for three reasons.



Reason 1 (Inefficiency)

Firstly, they are inefficient. Alternatives of animal testing cost so much less and take fraction of the time that the inhumane test takes. When an experiment is carried out on animals, obtaining of many difference species of sample animal is necessary, observation period is compulsory and replacement cost is considerable.


Reason 2 (Inaccuracy)

But are the results gained after such havoc and pricey investment accurate? They are poor. Results gained from animal testing obviously depict how certain substances affect animals, not humans. The effect on the substances on human is done by comparing the results with human tissues which is very inaccurate and archaic. Gordon Baxter, a scientist from a private experimenting company called the "Pharmagene Laboratories", once said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals?" Although words from Gordon Baxter are not the golden words, the quote in fact is very correct. When we already have so many samples of human genes, there is no purpose on experimenting on animals which is not even the ultimate subject to apply those experimental results on. Failure in discovering HIV/AIDS vaccines through animal testing would be a good example to show how animal testing is ineffective due to the difference of human being and animals. According to The National Institutes of Health, more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that previously passed animal testing turned out to fail on human clinical trials. To give another example, a famous pain reliever Vioxx that was recalled on September 30, 2004 passed numerous animal tests but had a critical side-effect on human body. The drug increased the risk of blood clots. This fact was confirmed after five years of observation period (from 1996~2001) and FDA estimates that this drug caused death of 27,000 patients. Each year in United States, more than 106,000 people die from side-effects of animal-tested drugs and about 2.2 million of the population is seriously injured. Death due to animal-tested drugs is the fourth leading cause of death and this dilemma causes economic damage of 136 billion US dollars. To those who still are not satisfied with failure examples, here is a link that will please your dissatisfaction: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com.... The site lists 50 cases from US Doctors Group, of disastrous consequences caused due to misleading animal testing. The site also at the bottom of their webpage included detailed references for each and every case.


Reason 3 (Ineffective & Purposeless)

It is also very noteworthy that 92 percent of animal-tested drugs are rejected at stage of clinical trial and more than half of those drugs that survived clinical trial are removed from the market due to additional harms. Hence, animal testing has a failure rate of 96% and a success rate of 4%. There is absolutely no purpose in leading time-consuming, money-consuming, effort-consuming and life-consuming experiments when the success rate is merely 4%. The cost outweighs benefit in such a huge rate that the benefit is almost negligible.


Reason 4 (Loophole Exploitation)

But in some cases, companies also exploit such failures in animal testing. It is a general knowledge that cigarettes cause lung cancer. However, many cigarette companies use animal testing to deny the direct correlation between smoking and cancer. Because animal tests are very misleading, a deliberate attempt to misuse such data occurs. Because cancer cells are very unlikely and in fact difficult to reproduce in lab animals, the test results on cigarettes turned out to pose no threat. For some while smoking was considered to be non-carcinogenic. We all know that is completely false. Nevertheless, some tobacco companies exploit this misleading experiment and deny that smoking has no direct correlation with cancer. (This fact can be confirmed on Lancet, the world-class medical journal published on June 25 of 1977 pages 1348-9) This misleading nature of animal testing (that sometimes things are different when it is tested on animal and human) can be potential danger for further exploitation and by banning animal testing which is so immoral, problematic and inefficient in the first place, we can eliminate this liability. Isn"t that very practical as well?



SUMMARY



Other than being immensely immoral, animal testing also carry so much practical drawbacks. It is inefficient to begin with and also very inaccurate. At the end of the day, it is not only purposeless but poses a potential threat to the society. There is absolutely no purpose in practicing an outdated, obsolete and gamble-like technology when it can be replaced with something that is better in various aspects and moral.



REFERECES


http://www.peta.org...
http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr...
http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

This is really boring, I need to re word my topic...
Ike-Jin-Park

Con

This debate has been a very disappointing one. I am saddened by the fact that my first debate on Debate.org ended this way due to opponent's indifference towards the topic he himself posted. But again, regardless of my opponent's attitude, I briefly summarize and end this debate.


CLASH ANALYSIS

There was no clash whatsoever throughout the debate. The Instigator offered absolutely no rebuttal or argument which made this debate extremely one sided. Medical testing debate should have had clash on if benefits gained from sacrifices of animal lives worth it. Put simple the main debate should have been a morality vs practicality debate. On both spectrum of the argument, I have obviously won because I have explained how animal testing is immoral and also very impractical.

Classicaly, on moral vs practical debate, one side pursues morality while other side pursues practicality and what makes these type of debate most interesting is both side endeavor to prove that their case is both moral and practical. I was expecting some harsh and bold argumentations regarding benefits that aniaml testing brings to us and how other alternatives cannot completely replace animal testing, hence animal testing worth the life. I also expected some points regarding how funerals of lab animals are led so the Pro can take the point on morality as well. But as shown, none of those efforts were made.

I, for my part, prepared ethos attack on Pro and was ready to have a huge clash on practicality argument as well. For that, I have done some of my own reserach, sparing my time, unlike the Instigator who plainly considers this motion.


SUMMARY

There is no need to even re-summarize my point becasue no attack was even attempted on them but I still will for the sake of formality and with slight hope that summarized version of my argumentation will not bore our opponent.

Firstly, I gave slight emphasis on animal rights and how when there is an alternative, no sacrifice of animal lives should occur. Why do we want to kill animals when we have other samples we can carry our tests on? This was my morality argument that I consider could have developed more.

Secondly, I gave my practicality argument, speaking under the assumption that EVEN IF, if we were to forsake morality (which we will never do anyways) animal testing is still purposeless. To support my stance on this, I gave countless examples and reasons why animal testing is inefficient, inaccruate, purposeless and has a potentail of exploitation. Massive amount of money and countless lives (human and animal) were sacrificed because of animal testing. As I have mentioned in my previous round whcih my opponent considered to be boring, the fourth leading cause of death in the US is unexpected side-effects of animal-teste drugs. I do not wish to go over details to prove that animal testing is very impractical again because I do not want to bore any readers. We all have seen so clearly it is very impractical.


CONCLUSION

I just want to end this debate with a quote from Mark Twain:

"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."

The fact that experiments inflict excruciating pain on animals is enough to have animal-testing shut down immediately. But we human being still do things that are very inhumane because they have practical benefits. Or maybe it is just an excuse that we give. What we should do is try to stop immoral things no matter how much benefit they give us. That is what makes us different. So let me ask this question. So how about immoral things that harms us as well, that breaks families, tortures innocent animals and is used negatively as a mean to earn money? It is out of question. It shall stop.


Thanks for reading.

Ike Jin Park
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by william001 4 years ago
william001
Too bad he didn't get elected...
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Moon Jae In in fact pledaged few things on animal rights and protectin. He is the most proactive president regarding animal issues, among all the presidents Korea ever had. He is agasint animal testing.
Posted by william001 4 years ago
william001
Park ik-jin what is Moon jae-in's position on animal testing?
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I guess it doesn't matter since your opponent didn't put up a fight.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Thanks for your comment philochristos.

Yes... There was a contradiction.

I think I should have argued that animals don't have the right to life, but maybe freedom from torture and basic respect to a life.

I think I should have also emphasized more on how animal testing and butchering is different at the same time. Those animal that are raised for food, as I've said lead an idealistic life as an animal. In return of that, giving away meat to us is not too much and as cruel given from the fact that they are "born to have happy life and a quick death".

Thanks for pointing this out.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Feel free to make constructive comments agasint or for my argumentations.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Ike, you seem to contradict yourself when you say, "Animals are entitled of life just like we are," but then turn around and argue that it's morally permissible to raise animals for the purpose of killing them for food. Or do you think it's morally permissible to kill humans for food?
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 4 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
For some reason, my link has not been included.
Here we go:
<http://www.peta.org...;
Posted by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"If we don't test animals we won't know what is wrong with them and therefore we won't be able to improve and or maintain their health (if of course they are sick)."

I don't think you understand what animal testing entails.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Are you defending animal testing within the status quo or just the concept of animal testing?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a generally OK approach to this. I don't think more than around 20% of a case should be quotes from external sources, because it leaves less room for your own analysis, which there wasn't all that much of. The best material came in round 2, although the sources should have been either in-text or their relation to the facts presented more clearly indicated, and "inefficiency" probably shouldn't have come first as it will always be your weakest (in any debate, because efficiency can always be asserted by somebody both ways and you never really know until you try). Con's summary was fine in this debate. Pro had the right of definition in this debate. Con can try to claim a squirrel but he had to prove it was beyond the spirit of the topic. A forfeit is not an acceptable response, however. In addition, pro's analysis was very short (only one sentence), which I did not feel was sufficient to meet their burden of proof even if everything con said could be claimed to be irrelevant.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
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 forfeited. Pro used improper grammar and orthographical conventions. Con made far superior arguments and had sources. Easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
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 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: Obvious win to Con.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No arg from Pro
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
GeorgiaAshleyIke-Jin-ParkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit