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

Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 5/5/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 33311
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I stand on these 3 main points
1:This has many benefits to America
2:More testing=More/better outcome for the U.S
3:For knowledge sake

Contention 1:This has many benefits
-Subpoint A:Many medical benifits
Back in 1996 Dolly the sheep, was produced at the Roslin Institute as part of research into producing medicines in the milk of farm animals. Researchers have managed to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, so that they can produce, for instance, the blood clotting agent factor IX to treat haemophilia or alpha-1-antitrypsin to treat cystic fibrosis and other lung conditions.
The development of cloning technology has led to new ways to produce medicines and is improving our understanding of development and genetics.

EXPLAIN:So this clearly shows the medical advances are endless

Contention 2:People are dying because this is not legalized
-Subpoint A:More testing=More/better outcome for the U.S
Here are some listed examples of how animal testing has helped us...
Smallpox vaccine developed

Anthrax vaccine developed

Rabies vaccine developed
Dog, Rabbit

Lifecyle of Malaria discovered

Immunity mechanisms discovered
Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig

Insulin discovered
Dog, Fish

Neuron function discovered
Cat, Dog

Tetanus vaccine developed

Anticoagulants developed

Polio vaccine developed
Mouse, Monkey

Open-heart surgery & pacemakers developed

Cholesterol regulation discovered

Social & behavioral patterns in animals discovered
Fish, Bee, Bird

Leprosy treatment developed

Organ transplant techniques advanced
Dog, Pig, Sheep, Cow

Prions discovered & characterized
Hamster, Mouse

2000:Brain signal transduction discovered
Sea Slug, Mouse, Rat
2002:Cell death mechanism discovered:Worm

Contention 3:We need to legalize this for knowlage sake
-Subpoint A:Knowlage can save lives!
This point is basicly common sence if you about something(Knowlage) like a virus BUT, You need to know more what do you do? You experiment/you figure it out. This is all we would be doing just expanding our knowlage to benifit america

And for those points I stand on the aff side on this resoluction. THANKS FOR READING AND GOOD LUCK TO MY OPPONET :)


I accept the argument, however late, and wish my opponent good luck. Let's cut to the chase:

My opponent contends that we get many medical advances from testing. For starters, I'd like to point out that my opponent has literally copy/pasted info from the site he's given. I hope this does not contend any unqualification on his/her part. To test this point, let me ask my opponent this question- what does cloning a sheep have to do with inserting a human gene into a sheep? Or speaking to your general argument, how does cloning allow us to produce medicines?

My opponent does make good points. I have researched each of his lists and indeed all of them are accurate. But the real question everyone should be asking themselves is just how bad are these diseases? Let me use the modern-example of AIDS. Terrible disease with no cure. My opponent contends that by animal testing we would be able to save the 25 million who die each year from it, and he would be very well true. However, does he take into account other factors? AIDS is only an epidemic in Africa. If this was a pandemic I'd understand, but the fact that it's only a big problem in Africa proves something- there are other factors at play. The primary one is poverty. With poverty, you have all these issues (poor sanitation, bacteria-infested water, poor [if any] healthcare, etc...) that create this environment where the HIV can thrive. This was the same case in all those vaccination examples you posted- the problem wasn't the disease, it was the conditions of the nation at the time. Heck, doctors were often times sharing needles, bandages, and medical tools between patients without washing them.

Animal testing costs about $12-$16 billion dollars a year (and yes, I am using PETA's estimates unfortunately, but I trust their verification). $5 billion is all it would take to end poverty in a nation/jumpstart it towards industrialization (Living in the Environment AP edition, Chapter 6). Why should we be wasting money on animal testing when we can spend less on ending poverty in these areas?

My opponent's next argument is about knowledge. Now, I am a bit skeptical on how much knowledge humanity should attain, but in the end I will propose this question- why should we torture innocents to get this knowledge when we have plenty of alternatives to this? I will quote this passage from PETA's site (I actually can verify the claims made in this, but they summarized it better then I can):

"Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators and computational models are more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane than animal experiments. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model "microbrain," which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test irritancy on protein membranes, produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. Animal experiments don"t persist because they are the best science, they persist because of experimenters" personal biases and archaic traditions."

Animal experimentation is a thing of the past. As the United States of America, we have an obligation to move forward and lead other nations in a new path.

I eagerly await my opponents response. Good luck mate!
Debate Round No. 1


Varsity_Debater-420 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the round. If he comes back this next one, I would like it if he responded to my argument. In regards to the comment about what would be non-scientific testing, I believe I can answer that. There is no such thing as non-scientific as technically everything can be said to be "scientific". However, if we're talking about knowledge beneficial to humanity, then I personally consider cosmetic testing to be non-scientific.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
An what would be non-scientific testing?
No votes have been placed for this debate.