The Instigator
Queen278
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Forthelulz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/23/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 74090
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Queen278

Pro

I think animal testing should be banned cause animals shouldn't have to suffer they are living things too, like we are.
Forthelulz

Con

I believe that animal testing should continue on the grounds that it's easier to test chemical compounds and whatnot on a living thing. Because I care about my fellow man more than I care about some animal, I'd rather the the guys testing the animal discover the nasty side-effects and have them dealt with than have the guy develop the side-effects and suffer for it under the same people.
Debate Round No. 1
Queen278

Pro

You say that:
I believe that animal testing should continue on the grounds that it's easier to test chemical compounds and whatnot on a living thing. Because I care about my fellow man more than I care about some animal, I'd rather the the guys testing the animal discover the nasty side-effects and have them dealt with than have the guy develop the side-effects and suffer for it under the same people.

According to the book "Science and Society Animal Testing Issues and Ethics" By: Stephanie Watson
"Artificial Skin. Scientists in Europe have created a substance that looks and acts like human skin." ("Watson 41")

According to the book "Science and Society Animal Testing Issues and Ethics" By: Stephanie Watson
"Many of the drugs that were developed through animal testing could have been tested without the use of animals." ("Watson 41")

According to the book "Science and Society Animal Testing Issues and Ethics" By: Stephanie Watson
"Animals are not exactly the same as humans and may not respond in the same way to treatments." (Watson, forgot the page number)

These are just some of the reasons why we should bann Animal Testing.
Forthelulz

Con

*For best effect, the reader is advised to be playing the Ultramarines Chant from the Chaos Gate soundtrack while reading.*

I aim to demonstrate that animal testing is ultimately beneficial to humans, and therefore should not be banned.

To begin with, animals are not human, and therefore don't have or deserve a voice.
It is cheaper to use something analogous to a human then to use an actual human in most if not all cases, with a reduced risk to the human, because by the time human testing rolls around, most of the danger that would be posed is gone.

While the synthetic skin idea mentioned in the comments section looks good on paper, it cannot imitate digestive, circulatory, or nervous systems for the kids that don't use the stuff correctly, and people certainly will. Give Murphy his due. If tested on animals, it would be found that the hair treatment does induce a disease, and it would not be tested on a human subject. With simple synthetic skin, it would sail on through all the way to a human subject.

Admittedly, we could ban animal testing and use only test subjects from Chinese prisons, but that would be orders of magnitude worse from the point of view of the "cut down on suffering" school of thought, because now it's real people!

Another thought: How many vaccines that go into your pets are made from animal testing? While I, for one, consider pets a liability, there are those that gain enjoyment from their companions. Without animal testing, the rabies shots and whatnot would not have been possible.

Ethics is a biggie. If it is unethical for humans to be used in an experiment, bring in the monkeys! They're more expendable than Imperial Guardsmen or D-Class!

To summarize the benefits, it's cheaper, more reliable as of the time of writing, benefits the animals in the form of vaccines and surgical procedures, guaranteed humane treatment, to determine reliability of the results, the animals have no rights, and they shouldn't have any either, they have a shorter life-cycle, so results can be brought in faster, and best of all, they're not us.

Sure, there are some drawbacks, like fundamental differences causing promising drugs to be shelved because the animals reacted badly to something that wouldn't be a problem with a human, but we have China for testing those kinds of products now.

Yes, there are those who argue that animal testing is horrific and evil, and they may have a point, but every suitable alternative proposed thus far that doesn't involve a real live human is even more flawed, usually in terms of reliability, or affecting the bottom line.

In conclusion, animal testing may be considered evil, but it is ultimately beneficial. The wonders animal testing have brought about will be forgotten by tomorrow, but its failures will be remembered for all time, should it fall under contention. Therefore, it should not be banned, as it is more good than evil, and no completely suitable alternative is available at the time of writing.
Debate Round No. 2
Queen278

Pro

Your Argument:
How many vaccines that go into your pets are made from animal testing? While I, for one, consider pets a liability, there are those that gain enjoyment from their companions. Without animal testing, the rabies shots and whatnot would not have been possible.

My Argument:
Yes, I agree with that statement but this is about the future not the past. Animals have helped us in the past for diseases but with our technology today we don't need to do Animal Testing.

According to http://peta.org...:
"Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to roam free and use their minds. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed." (Pg. 1)

According to http://peta.org...:
"Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes." (Pg. 1)

According to https://dosomething.org...:
"1. Over 100 millions animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in US labs every year.
4. Up to 90% of animals used in U.S. labs are not counted in the official statistics of animals tested.
9. In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day for 2 years. Other tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses." (Pg. 1 and Pg. 2)

According to http://peta.org...:
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, "Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies." (Pg. 1)

According to http://peta.org...:
"In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work." (Pg. 1)

According to http://aavs.org...:
"Since 2000, the number of nonhuman primates held in laboratories has increased from over 95,381 to over 107,125 in 2012, an increase of more than 10%. Nearly 30,000 primates were subjected to painful and distressful experiments in 2012."

Just some more reason's why we should ban Animal Testing. We have very high technology and scientists have already come with an alternative other than Animal Testing.
Forthelulz

Con

A-ha! You fool! You've fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never rely solely on specific events and biased sources when my ego is on the line!" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha!

You are ignoring the core of my argument, and using sources that are cheerfully biased. My argument is that humanity is by nature better than those pathetic creatures and is merely exercising dominion over them.

The sources cited are blatantly biased against animal testing and at least one encourages petty theft as a nice side bonus.

I used http://animal-testing.procon.org... as my source.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to watch a heartwarming family comedy. I'm thinking Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rainyi 1 year ago
Rainyi
"Every species of animals exists for a reason, to let one go extinct is to rob the planet of the unique beauty and quality it provides."

I agree with Pro, animal testing just leads a path right where the planet doesn't want to be.
Posted by Kaynes 1 year ago
Kaynes
But as for the animal testing, I really am doubtful that she can prove there is am economically viable way to replace animal testing with something else. I didnt do the research though, so I will follow this debate and it might change my opinion on this matter
Posted by Kaynes 1 year ago
Kaynes
It amazes me how many americans actually believe that being racist is part of a normal natural mentality that comes up with "volution. I really should make a debate about that
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
And yes I do understand eating meat isn't necessarily a necessity. I researched it 2 minutes before posting my other comments. But say you have adapted to eating meat because you grew up with that dietary path, it's like saying you grew up in Georgia. Meaning (not all), my parents raised me around racism. Yes, I understand you can choose to not be racist, but it's part of your mentality. Same with eating meat, in today's world restaurants and fast-food stores are everywhere. I have tried not eating meat before, but temptation got the best of me. I went for a week and then ate meat. I cannot eat just vegetables and fruits and snacks. Like, it deprived me from sleep and it wasn't enjoyable. I have to go, ttyl!
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
So, if I'm correct, you disagree with animal testing and you do not eat animals' meat?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Barbie, we shouldn't eat animals either. What if I took that stance?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Look, Barbie: I cannot argue the morality of animals with you because you think humans are important enough. Its like arguing slavery being wrong to a racist. You cannot win because when it comes to ethics, there is no definitive points. For instance, slavery maybe wouldn't be so bad if there was a group of people who where genetically stupid, wicked and troublemakers. And Animal cruelty is okay to someone who thinks they are better than everything else. You are morally void, but that doesn't really mean anything because who says morals matter? I think they do but I am just an opinion. Your lack of morality, and lack of compassion, are successful attributes in a Darwinian reality and I cannot logically argue your inadequacy.

Just a side note. I have studied this, research it for 2 mins and you will see: Vegetarianism is healthier than meat-eating. So I laughed at your idea that we must eat meat to survive.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
I'll gladly debate this. I will make no argument against the existence of special artifical skin.
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
BarbieSoFetch
I'm sorry, I don't believe you understand the concept of my comment. You are just like most cliches, please just stop. And let's say I wouldn't have included the part about God. Would it really matter? You are just trying to start an argument that is not needed, nor relevant. I just put that because it's an act of persuasion and something that could set my opinion straight. It's a way of expressing my disapproval. This argument is so ridiculous. I would enjoy enlightening Queen278, but I don't meet her "criteria". Some people just don't have comment sense and don't think rationally. And whether it was my God, or her god, or something else, animals are on earth to eat. It is a necessity. Especially back then when humans weren't as advanced as today. You think someone could live correctly without eating meat ever? Also, without testing stuff on animals, we wouldn't be so advanced as today. And humans are much too valuable, and much more valuable than animals. It's a way we live and learn. Other than humans, animals such as; apes, dogs, cats, mice, etc. can actually react to stuff like this, and some animals have similar structures to humans allowing us to test. It might seem inhumane, but realistically, it would be inhumane to test on humans.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 1 year ago
Tommy.leadbetter
How do you know God put them here to eat? Do you know the mind of God? Or do you believe that those who wrote down what they could, got it right word for word? I must remind you that more people than those who decided the text of the Bible, have thought themselves to have felt the presence of God.

So, how do you know what the almighty energy behind the fabric of existence thinks about animals BarbiesoFetch? Please enlighten us with your Godly transcendence.
No votes have been placed for this debate.