The Instigator
Lee001
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific and Commercial Testing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,124 times Debate No: 79871
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (3)

 

Lee001

Con

Simple debate. Definitions:

*Animal testing: Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops).
(https://www.google.com...)

*Scientific Testing:principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.(https://www.google.com...)

*Commercial testing:Regulations and laws control the marketing of many commercial products, including drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and food additives which could potentially be hazardous or pose a danger to human health or the environment. A number of these commercial products are tested on animals.(https://www.animallaw.info...)

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final roundd
4. No Kritiks
5. No trolling
6. No semantics abuse
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure:
First round is for acceptance.
No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.
lannan13

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Con

I'd like to thank Lannan for partaking in this debate! good luck :)

[1] "100 million animals are killed for research each year in the United States alone" for the shampoo you use, the makeup you wear, the cleaners you use in your house etc..

Many of these tests done on animals turn out to not work. Allot of times, if they seem to work and appear to be safe, its approved and a human actually tries it, and then develops life-threatening side effects.

In my argument, I will be arguing 3 main contentions.

C.1 Animal Testing is Unreliable.

C.2 Animal Testing is Unjust

C.3 Alternatives.

* C.1 Animal Testing is Unreliable.

First, I'd like to go over a case of testing that was done on animals, then once it seemed safe, it was then given to humans.

[8] In March, 2006, six human volunteers were injected with TGN 1412, an experimental therapy created by TeGenero. As described by Slate:

Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony. The compound was designed to dampen the immune response, but it had supercharged theirs, unleashing a cascade of chemicals that sent all six to the hospital. Several of the men suffered permanent organ damage, and one man's head swelled up so horribly that British tabloids refer to the case as the 'elephant man trial'.

TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats and monkeys with no ill effects.

It's not a surprising fact to say that humans and non-living humans process things differently. 1. Humans live longer than non-humans. 2. Humans metabolize differently than non-humans. 2. Humans have different reactions to substances than those with non-humans. Thus, it is safe to say, that testing on animals is needless and cruel on many levels.

[1] The reason that animal testing is causing so much harm to humans may be because of the unreliable results animal testing produces. Dr. Richard Klausner, a former director of the National Cancer Institute said "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans."

This is reliable proof that non human species react differently than humans. If scientist can cure mice of cancer, then how come scientist are still searching for a cure for humans?

[3] Because evolution, molecular biology, and genetics show that animals and humans differ in profoundly important ways, animal models will never be able to accurately recapitulate what happens in the human condition

Not only is this testing cruel and unusual but it cost allot of money.

A: Animal Testing is Too Expensive

As my case above has stated, animal testing is A. Unreliable B. Is cruel and unusual.

If these 2 things have been proven right, then why are we still funding this inhumane act?

[4] The purchase and maintenance of animals in labs is very expensive. Rats, mice, and birds comprise over 90 percent of all research animals not because they are necessarily the best and most reliable animal models, but because, in comparison to many other species, they are relatively inexpensive to buy, easy to manage and maintain, and disposable without much public clamor or concern.... Although industry draws huge profits from it, there is an economic downside to animal research that directly affects public health and environmental safety. Relative to non-animal, alternative methods, live animal research is prohibitively expensive and time consuming. For example, the DakDak test (used to measure the efficacy of sunscreens in preventing skin damage) can provide data for five or six products at less than half the cost of testing one product in animals. The current “gold standard” for testing a chemical to determine if it is carcinogenic is the rodent bioassay, which takes up to five years from planning to evaluation and review, at a cost of up to more than $4 million per substance. In vitro screening allows companies to identify promising test compounds in a cost- and time-efficient manner before progressing to human trials?"

As you can see, animal testing is a waste of money. Later on in my case, I will argue an alternative. An alternative that is not only A) Moral as in not (doing immoral things to an animal's) B) More cost effective.

* C.2 Animal Testing is Unjust.

Firstly, to understand why animal testing is unjust, we must understand *how* and *why* it is unjust. But we must understand what unjust is, and how it applies to animal testing.

[5] Unjust-not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

To understand why something is Unjust, we must understand what "Moral" means.

[6] Moral- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

From these 2 simple definitions, we can comprehend that:

A) Animal testing causes pain & suffering. Scientist know there are other alternatives to testing, bust *still* test on animals.

B) Pain and suffering is unjust.

C) And because pain and suffering is unjust, it is not moral because the human committing the action is acting in bad behavior.

How is animal testing unjust?

When a animal is experimented on, some are placed back into a small cage and sit there to suffer. Some, (if they survive) sit in their small cage and wait for yet another experiment to be done on them.

[7] 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.

Here, we can see that this is in fact "unjust" and cruel. There are many alternatives to animal testing's. but scientist choose to ignore the alternatives and continue to test on animals. the fact that they acknowledge that there are other alternatives proves that these humans are acting immorally.

[8]The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually relevant to humans. Not only is immoral and unjust, and irrelevant to humans, there are other alternatives that are *actually relevant to humans"



C. 3 Alternatives

Since there have been so many animal testing failures, new alternatives are being looked at by doctors.

[9]During a government meeting about funding for research, former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni admitted that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure. He told his colleagues:

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni

Doctors and scientist have found new alternatives that are A) More cost effective and B) Are relevant to humans.

[10] These modern methods include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time and money to complete.

Conclusion:

As provided by the definitions of "Unjust" and "Immoral" we note that animal testing in inhumane because this is an act of poor behavior from humans.

Just a break down:

* I have provided facts and proof that animal testing is NOT relevant to humans.

* Animal testing is very expensive.

* Animal testing is immoral and cruel.

* There are more reliable and cost effective alternative to animal testing.

Good luck!

Sources:

[1] http://www.academia.edu...

[3] http://www.navs.org...

[4] http://www.neavs.org...

[5] https://www.google.com...

[6] https://www.google.com...

[7] http://www.peta.org...

[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[9] http://www.peta.org...

lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for the challenge as we have been meaning to do a rematch of a debate since this past summer.

Contention 1: Utilitarianism

For this case of Utilitarianism I will be focusing on John Stuart Mill's case of Utility here. We have to look at the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of Sentient Beings. I will concede to the fact that animals are Sentient beings, but something we should focus on is the Greatest number portion. Before we dive into that I would like to point out a key argument that Mill makes and that is humans have priority over animals concidereing that humans can expierence a greater amount of pleasure and a better potential in this case. [1]

Now as we begin here I have to prove that through Animal Testing we would be providing the Greatest Utility in this case and henceforth win the debate on these grounds, because if the ultamate utility isn't achieved then we will have more pain than pleasure and thus harming humanity which will ultamately lead to our downfall and depletion of human progress. First let's look at the benefits that these animal tests have provided humans. If we can look at the past 100 years we can see that almost all of the medical break throughs have actually came directly from Animal tests. [2] There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012. [3] There's also progress and come close to vaccines and treatments on a long chain of other illnesses it has helped with that I don't have time to go into detail with them all, but to list a few: Hep B, Hep C, polio, Brain Injuries, Breast Cancer, TB, Leukemia, Cardic Valve Subsitutes, and several others. [4][5]

Let's move on to animals and how they actually benefit from this. Now I would like to clarify to the voters here. I'm not the anti-PETA guy who thinks that we should put lipstick on a bunny to see if it makes it bullet proof, but more of a reasonable expierements over these vacines and such. First we have to look at some of the cures that actually came from testing on animals and the animal diseases that had vacines for them. There has been a countless list, but just to name a few: Rabbies, CPV, Feline Hep, Distemper, Antrax, and Feline Leukemia. [2] We can see that in this case countless millions upon millions of animals lives would have been lost if it wasn't for animal testing. As for the number of research subjects it is just over 26 million total. We consume more than 1800 more animals than test subjects. [6] We cannot deem this unethical without attacking eating meat amongst other things.

Now we can see that overal more humans and animals have been saved than those animals who have lost their lives and in current use. This is important when weighing this argument as we can see that this plan creates a net benefit of pleasure while my opponent's plan would be that of a net pain and shouldn't be ennacted as her position not only harms society and ends the golden age of medical research, but it kills humans of which we could have saved through animal research.


Contention 2: Ethic of Care

This will be another key argument as in this contention will I not only show that animals get better treatment than the PETA narrative paints, but will show that animal testing is necessary for the Ethic of Care.

The Ethic of Care argument is dependent of that of one's relationships and whether they entered upon it voluntarially. We can see that there may be a relationship between a human and an animal, BUT we must apply an offshoot of ecofeminism. Here we can see that humanity must preserve our society and better it for our future generations. Our future generations are that of the next immidate generation here. [7] Most of these relationships are actually maternal and for that we have to think of the future generations of which not only would we be saving more animals in the future, but more animals. It is for this great fact that we still need animal testing in order to protect the unborn and save them from these diseases. Some PETA activists may claim the same naritive that Brian Griffin did in Family Guy of which they put lipstick on a bunny to see if it's bullet proof. (video provided for humor) That's an absurd and an incorrect narrative as we can see that this industry is heavily regulated by the US Federal Government. According to the Animal Welfare Act Passed in the mid 1960's animals had to be provided with adiquete housing, food, water, way to use the bathroom, receive regular check-ups from vets, and all research testing has to be approved by a Congressional Committe in order for it to go forward. [8] Believe it or not, but they get play breaks, their choice of toys, and relaxation for several hours a day, so countrary to belief they aren't just used all day and night with end, but are in a good condition and relitively happy about their status. [9]

When we look at this situation we can see that animals are the perfect fit here as humans are out of the question. We have to see that many mammals are key in this research as they have similiar builds to humans like how certain monkey's share 99% of Human DNA and their similiarities can help cure key diseases and solve key medical issues. [10] These testings must continue or we might suffer another Thalidomide Tragedy where a sleeping and pain killer pill lead to people having to amputate limbs. [11] This issue shows us that we need to push for more animal testing not less. This is needed to prevent more tragedies like this one from happening.

We can see that this is another very important argument here as we can see that if we do not continue this animal testing we will be violating our relationship with our future generations and harming them by killing them before they are even born. We must preserving our future generations and our relations for the safety and stability of our soceity and the human race.

With that I will pass things off to my opponent.



Sources
1. (http://faculty.frostburg.edu...)
2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
3. National Academy of Sciences, "Report Calls for New Directions, Innovative Approaches in Testing Chemicals for Toxicity to Humans," nationalacademies.org, June 12, 2007
4. AnimalResearch.info, "Diseases & Research," animalresearch.info (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
5. Elizabeth Fisher, "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing," huffingtonpost.co.uk, July 17, 2013
6. Tom Holder, "Animal Research Is an Ethical and Vital Tool to Fight Disease," blogs.law.harvard.edu, Jan. 14, 2013
7. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286
8. (http://animal-testing.procon.org...)
9. Americans for Medical Progress, "Touring an Animal Research Facility," youtube.com, Oct. 21, 2008
10. David Wright, Cole Kazdin, and Lauren Effron, "'Zoobiquity': 7 Diseases Animals Share with Humans," abcnews.go.com, June 12, 2012
11. (https://helix.northwestern.edu...)
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Con

Thank you Pro!
I will start of by rebutting Pro's points.
First off, Pro argues Ultilirarianism. His manin argument here, is that animal testing has been proven to be effective. If we take a look at a more reliable source *The FDA* we will see that animal testing fails humans, more than saving them.
[1] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous.

92% percent of drugs tested that appear to be "safe" on animals, fails in human trials. The main reason for this? Animals react differently to drugs, and our immune system is different.

Pro states "There have been tests of which the dog's pancrease was removed and insulin was discovered this way. Now we save tons of diabetic patient lives each year. We have also used animals to test for polio and this has effectively helped bring down those numbers from 350,000 in 1988 to a mere 233 in 2012."



1st off, the source dosen't tell us *how* insulin was discovered, only that a pancreas was removed and insulin was discovered.

Alternative: I have already argued *how* an animals and their annatomy differ from humans. It would only make sense to test theese procedures on humans, because we ARE humans.

[2]

Both healthy and diseased tissues donated from human volunteers can provide a more relevant way of studying human biology and disease than animal testing.

Human tissue can be donated from surgery (e.g. biopsies, cosmetic surgery and transplants). For example, skin and eye models made from reconstituted human skin and other tissues have been developed and are used to replace the cruel rabbit irritation tests. Companies such as Episkin, Mattek and CellSystems GmbH now produce these tests in easy to use kits for companies to use to test their cosmetics and other substances.

Human tissue can also be used after a person has died (e.g. post-mortems). Post-mortem brain tissue has provided important leads to understanding brain regeneration and the effects of Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.

Alternatives are better

  • Crude skin allergy tests in guinea pigs only predict human reactions 72% of the time. But a combination of chemistry and cell-based alternative methods has been shown to accurately predict human reactions90% of the time.
  • The notorious Draize skin irritation test in rabbits can only predict human skin reactions 60% of the time. But using reconstituted human skin is up to 86% accurate.
  • The standard test on pregnant rats to find out if chemicals or drugs may harm the developing baby can only detect 60% of dangerous substances. But a cell-based alternative (EST) has 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals.
  • The cruel and unreliable shellfish toxin testing on live mice has now been fully replaced with a far superior analytical chemistry method that is better at protecting humans.

Here, we can obtain from this study, that there is a better, more reliable way of teasting testing on animals. We are humans, we should be testing on human bodies and cells. Not on a mammal.


We can also gather that by testing on animals, *knowing* there is an alternative, is inhumane and cruel, as given the side effects I have provived.

My alternative 100% compleatly rebutts his "Utilitarianism" case. I simply showed that there are more reliable ways of testing!



Pro then argues "Ethich of Care"

My rebuttal above basically rebutts this contention as well. Pro states "Most of these relationships are actually maternal and for that we have to think of the future generations of which not only would we be saving more animals in the future, but more animals. It is for this great fact that we still need animal testing in order to protect the unborn and save them from these diseases."

I had just provided a more reliable, and cost effective way of testing. We would not be using animals for testing, but actual humans, and human cells.

Pro then states "According to the Animal Welfare Act Passed in the mid 1960's animals had to be provided with adiquete housing, food, water, way to use the bathroom, receive regular check-ups from vets, and all research testing has to be approved by a Congressional Committe in order for it to go forward. [8] Believe it or not, but they get play breaks, their choice of toys, and relaxation for several hours a day,"

This is FALSE. In round 2, in my argument, I gave many effects on the animal whilst during testing

"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."

When animals turn neurottic, they don't care about playing with toys, eating ot drinking. The labs provide theese things to the animals because they *have* to. Some labs don't even bother doing it. I will post a video in this round as proof.


Watch the video, and tell me if theese animals looked like they are being cared for, or being held humanley.

Pro states "Now we can see that overal more humans and animals have been saved than those animals who have lost their lives and in current use."

Again this is false. I had already showed, that from the FDA accumilated that 92% testings done on animals, fail on humans. I also had just argues a more reliable, humane way to test on humans.

I basically reffuted all of his points, by arguing an alternative!

Good luck!



Sources:
lannan13

Pro

Alrighty, before we get into this debate, we can see that my opponent has actually mixed all of her own arguments with mine.
C1, C2, and C3 are all dealing with my first Contention while my second contention and her 2nd actually go together.

Contention 1: Utilitarianism

First I would like to point out that my opponent's sourcing for 1 in R3 is actually just a google search of reliable statisic soruces of which the very first link that comes up is a site that is where a multitude of my own arguments comes from. NOT the source for the FDA argument. Furthering my research I found that, using the first source my opponent linked, that she took that quote out of context. It shows that the average test has an 8% chance of getting onto the market. [1] Mind you it's the average test, not the effective ones as shown in the graph bellow. In the graph we can see that as the phases move on the percentage of it being proved goes up while my opponent is only merely arguing for the first phase.

nine-out-of-ten-stat-big.jpg

As to the alternatives here this will be an quite interesting argument. My opponent brings up alternatives claiming that cells and tissues would work for these testings, but this claim is absurd. There is little to zero chance of these likeness as when looking at comparison to a living being to where we need to observe key things like the effects on the nervious system and immune system. [2] If we created a drug without going through living beings testings then we are more likely than not to come up with another Thalidomide Tragedy which we need to avoid here. Another key thing we have to look at is the effect on the human organs. How the drug or cosmetic effects blood flow or other blood factors are extremely key to look at and if we use simple tissue we would be over-looking this fact. [3] To further the flaws here is that there only use these tissues and algorithems from computers which actually cannot even be done without animal testing in the first place, so my opponent's "alternative" is really a sham. [4]

With that my argument here stands.

Contention 2: Ethic of Care

I have already addressed my opponent's alternatives case.

My opponent then moves on to arguing that stress makes for a bad test subject. For this I do agree, but the FDA and US Federal Government has created a great deal of red tape to the point of where the animals are given several breaks and times a day where the are care free. [5] [6] My opponent has provided a biased evidence from PETA and other like sources. That's like if I was to provide my evidence from Lifenews on an abortion debate. I on the other hand have sited Federal Government websites and shown where this happens.

This argument stands!



Sources
1. ( http://www.fda.gov...)
2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
3. (Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com, Sep. 17, 2007)
4. Speaking of Research, "FAQ about Animal Research," speakingofresearch.com (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
5. John J. Pippin, MD and Kristie Sullivan, MPH, "Dangerous Medicine: Examples of Animal-Based 'Safety' Tests Gone Wrong," Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine website (accessed Oct. 23, 2013)
6. ( http://www.animalresearchcures.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
Lee001

Con

I'd like to thank Lannan for debating this topic with me, it was a fun debate!

There are a few things that voters should be aware of.

My opponent never fully addresses the fact that animal resting in immoral and unjust. I have argued on multiple occasions that the animals that are tested on get abused, and suffer due to excessive experiments. My opponent then claims that they *are* take care of, because they are fed, and eat and have toys to play with. Yet, the two videos I have provided show that they are for a fact, NOT being taken care of humanely. These animals most of the time turn neurotic.

Pro then says that- " First I would like to point out that my opponent's sourcing for 1 in R3 is actually just a google search of reliable statisic soruces of which the very first link that comes up is a site that is where a multitude of my own arguments comes from. NOT the source for the FDA argument"

Well, if you were to fully read the statistic, you would see that the *FDA* claims that "92% percent of drugs tested that appear to be "safe" on animals, fails in human trials. The main reason for this? Animals react differently to drugs, and our immune system is different." So, Pro is merely saying that the FDA is not a reliable source.

Pro then states about my alternative case that "As to the alternatives here this will be an quite interesting argument. My opponent brings up alternatives claiming that cells and tissues would work for these testings, but this claim is absurd. There is little to zero chance of these likeness as when looking at comparison to a living being to where we need to observe key things like the effects on the nervious system and immune system." Which he has no proof. He basically claims my alternative is absurd, but doesn't give us proof as to *WHY* it wouldn't work.

In round 2, I provided a reliable source, infact a doctors perspective on human alternatives "[9]During a government meeting about funding for research, former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni admitted that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure. He told his colleagues:

"We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. " We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. " The problem is that [animal testing] hasn"t worked, and it"s time we stopped dancing around the problem. " We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans." "Dr. Elias Zerhouni

Doctors and scientist have found new alternatives that are A) More cost effective and B) Are relevant to humans.

[10] These modern methods include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time and money to complete.

So, how could this not work, if its being practiced today by doctors? If it wasn't working, wouldn't you think doctors would discontinue this practice? But they haven't.

I'm going to stop here because my conclusion stands clear.

* I have provided facts and proof that animal testing is NOT relevant to humans.

* Animal testing is very expensive.

* Animal testing is immoral and cruel.

* There are more reliable and cost effective alternative to animal testing.

Vote Con!
lannan13

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. There are a few things left to address before the curtain call.

My opponent claims that I never addressed the "immoral and unjust" arguments, but truth is that I have. In Round 2 of all things. Let's bring back the definitions.

"Unjust-not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

To understand why something is Unjust, we must understand what "Moral" means.

[6] Moral- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

Here we can see that it's concerned with right and wrong behavior. My responses were Utilitarianism and Ethic of Care. Both of which are Moral Ethics. This argument was indeed addressed.

My opponent claims that I was bias on this matter and incorrect on the FDA claim, but the thing was when you followed her source it led to "Relibale Statistics for Animal Testing" which was her first source in Round 3. In which case I highlighted her argument and hit the "Go to..." button. That took me to a website that showed that this was taken out of context and directed me to the actual FDA statement of which had NOT said what my opponent had claimed showing that she had taken her argument out of context. It DID say that in phase 1 92% would fail human tests. This was shown in my graph I provided in Round 3 showing that further testing increases the likelihood that it will pass and this is why they do it, so we can throw this evidence out the window, but it does show that we need more testing in order to make it more effective and safer for humans which flows the debate into my favor.

As for the treating animals is also taken out of context. I have shown that these things aren't suppose to happen, but do occassionally happen. For this North Korea has made a video showing that Americans are poor and can only survive off of eating birds and snow. Now is this true? All Americans would all say no. The same thing can be said about animal testing.

Outside of the fact that my opponent's entire "alternatives" was a youtube video we can still see that she ignores my own argument showing that you cannot use certain alternatives here due to living creature tests that need to be studied and a tissue doesn't have these certain things. What my opponent's source does point out is that it shouldn't be done on humans, which I agree.

As we reach the end we can that I should win this debate on several grounds.
-Animal testing is Morally Ethical via Utilitarianism and Ethic of Care
-There are no better alternatives
-Animals that are testied on are humane and they are treated exceptionally well.
-Animal Research has saved the lives of humans and animals alike.
-Animal research is still needed.

Thank you and please vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sarai.K82// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate by both parties. Fantastic read. In terms of conduct, spelling, grammar, and sources, I thought both sides were tied. I was ultimately convinced by Pro's arguments in that I thought her alternative proposals were worth pursing and I was not convinced that pursuing them would result in greater suffering to humans than the suffering experienced by animals. In other words, I didn't find Con's utility argument sufficiently persuasive.

[*Reason for removal*] The vote is far too general and doesn't really explain the fault or success of any of these arguments. It's not up to the voter to simply point to arguments they agree and disagree with " they must examine what makes those arguments good or bad.
************************************************************************
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Thanks for the votes guys, :)

I love the feed back.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
RFD

I enjoyed reading this debate - this is an interesting topic that both debaters tackled with insightful and interesting points. However, I think the strength of the arguments was in Pro's favour. Whilst Con did say that animal testing is unjust and there are alternatives, Pro refuted these arguments by pointing out that animal testing actually maximises utility and that the alternatives (human tissue) are unsatisfactory for the requirements of modern research - which often necessitate that live organs be tested on.

Con is right in saying that animal testing isn't 100% reliable, but this does not mean that there would be better results if we do away with animal testing altogether. Pro highlights that, despite the less-than-perfect accuracy, animal testing has still helped millions of humans (and animals).

Finally, Con raises the animals suffering documented by the likes of PETA. However, Pro rightly points out that a PETA video is probably biased and cannot be shown to represent the norm. Pro's assertion that unnecessary animal suffering is abnormal is backed up by Government sources - which are unlikely to be biased.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
"1. Humans live longer than non-humans. " That's debatable.
Posted by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
Ore_Ele
This was an interesting debate. Normally, I would break down by points, but I think I will just break down the entire debate and go from there.

Con begins without establishing any moral code. This means she is appealing to my personal moral code. Not a good idea, since I don"t believe that people have objective rights, let along animals. It is important for any moral or ethical debate to establish a moral code (or avoid the ethics of it altogether). Con did attempt to argue for the effectiveness of animal testing (which would bypass ethics). Con mentions a case where animal testing has failed (TGN 1412), while Pro mentions a several cases where it succeeded, as well as cases where not doing animal testing has failed (Thalidomide). Neither side disproved the other"s anecdote. This means that we have something that doesn"t work all the time, but doesn"t work none of the time. At this point, Con needs to establish that alternatives would be more effective.

Con attempts to show that 92% of drugs that pass animals fail to get approval for humans. This would be a damning piece of evidence, since it provides a solid number on how effective (or in-effective) animal testing it (rather than just a list of cherry picked cases on each side). However, Con did not source this. She stated that it was an FDA number, but just linked a google search, none of the 1st page results were for the FDA. There was one link in the google search (yes, I checked the links within the link) that mentioned the 92% (and that it has gotten worse sine 1985), but it does not source that. In fact, that entire page, has only one source, an LA times article from 1998.
Posted by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
Ore_Ele
Pro does a poor job countering this, however. He calls out the poor sourcing and even shows a more detailed graph of how things are getting to the market and their likelihood at each interval. However, he never does address "why" the rates are so low. Is it that the medicine is "ineffective?" Is it that the medicine has more side effects than others? Is it that the medicine does not work as well as others already on the market? This could have been a key point to show on this.

Con shows that there are alternative methods, for certain things, like skin irritation (though my doctor just rubs the stuff on my back to see if there is a reaction, but my doctor might be a sadist" not too sure, I may have to look into that). These are specific examples and do not represent the whole of medicine. Pro correctly counters by saying that there is no support (at least none provided by Con) to support that these would work for complete organs and more complex systems.

On a personal note, I find it interesting that Con does not embrace the history of medicine and take the argument that these actions were needed and beneficial decades ago, but with our new technology, they are becoming a thing of the past, like having 40% of the population being farmers. Such a claim would neutralize any arguments of the benefits that they have had in the past and forced the debate on what they can do for the future. If this were to be graded, I would give Con 14/20 and Pro 17/20.

Thank you,
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
I don't have time to make an RFD but I think that pro won. Con's case was refuted w/ his federal guidelines source so there's nothing really the con has left.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Well at least he read it.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Lol, thanks @brant
Posted by brant.merrell 1 year ago
brant.merrell
No forfeits or major downfalls in paragraph structure, damn. Looks like I'll actually have to read this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by brant.merrell 1 year ago
brant.merrell
Lee001lannan13Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, I had to read it a few times, and sleep on it. Overall BOP wasn't defined, and Pro & Con's reasoning utilitarian processes both relied on knowing the exact limitations of the scientific method. Since in a debate format it's virtually impossible to address that level of scientific rigor, that question was a tie, as utilitarian questions usually are. I won't summarize Con's moral arguments, because pretty much any non-utilitarian argument could have broken the tie, and nearly any non-utilitarian rebut would have reinstated it. Con's mistake was the dismissive phrase, "My responses were Utilitarianism and Ethic of Care." Like the (other) utilitarian argument, the ethic of care reasoning took for granted that the outcome to an action in question (animal testing) is thoroughly understood. This was virtually a dropped point, and a tiebreaker.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Lee001lannan13Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 1 year ago
Ore_Ele
Lee001lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD