Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only
Debate Rounds (2)
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
Lifecyle of Malaria discovered
Immunity mechanisms discovered
Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig
Neuron function discovered
Tetanus vaccine developed
Polio vaccine developed
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
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 :)
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!
Varsity_Debater-420 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.