The Instigator
Staoon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Disquisition
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should Animals Be Used for Testing?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Disquisition
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 54272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Staoon

Con

I feel that animals should not be used for testing because animals are going to become extinct eventually. If animals usually only reproduce in certain months, while humans can anytime they want. Also, animals do not have a choice whether or not they want to be tested on. You wouldn't test on a human without their consent, why do it to an animal? Animals in labs are subjected to diseases that they wouldn't encounter in their natural habitat. I feel as though it would be better to experiment on humans that already have the disease. Then, the human that has the disease would get cured faster, and the animal that could have been experimented on would still be wherever it lived in the first place.
Disquisition

Pro

Arguments

I. Organ Systems

The main question here is why scientist even use animals to conduct their tests and not humans. The obvious answers are the ethical concerns and not fully knowing what a new drug could do to a human but what may not be so obvious is that animals have strikingly similar organ systems to humans that essentially perform that same functions in the body; which also means that animals react like humans when exposed to certain diseases [1]. This allows scientist to try out a new drug on an animal to observe the changes in the organ systems and extrapolate how this drug could potentially affect a human. So that’s mainly why animals like mice are used in animal testing, in fact human and mouse genomes are remarkably similar as well as their internal anatomy[2].

II. Medical Breakthroughs
Animal testing is not just necessary but is absolutely essential for the advancement of medical research [3]. Without medical testing there would likely be a multitude of diseases that are virtually extinct in this age, still running rampant and infecting people. Do you realize that anesthetics, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development and are used every day in hospitals around the world [1]. As a society I just don’t see how we can afford not to use animals for betterment of the human race. Let me assure you that there are laws set in place that prevent researchers from using animals when not needed, but computer modeling and magnetic resonance imaging may not provide the biological answers that can only be reached through animal testing [4].

III. Veterinary
A veterinarian is someone who helps animals, especially domesticated ones through surgical treatment but a vet wouldn’t even know how to do his/her job effectively if it weren’t for animal testing. So you see animal testing isn’t just for the benefit of a human, it can also be used to benefit another animal as well. If you have a pet I’m sure you love that animal very much and would take it to the vet if there was a medical issue. How would you feel if the vet wouldn’t know how to do his/her job since animal testing isn’t allowed? Ok I was being a little silly there but I think you get the point, vets are people who love animals and choose to care for them every day but still approve and see the benefit in animal testing.

Rebuttals

I. My opponent says "Some animals usually only reproduce in certain months, while humans can anytime they want"

The issue with this is that there are guidelines that researchers have to follow that certaintly won't lead to the extinction of a particular species and I'm pretty sure that the all of the animals used for testing don't reproduce in specific months.

II. My opponent says " You wouldnt't test on a human without their consent, why do it to an animal"

Animals can't volcalize consent to anything and by this sentence I assume that my opponent is using consent for animals in the same sense that a human gives consent.

III. My opponent says " I feel as though it would be better to experiment on humans that already have the diesease"

As I said in my first argument, the effects of a new drug may not fully be known and could potentially cause the death of a human, so it would be wise to test it on an animal first.

[1] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...
[2] http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 1
Staoon

Con

Staoon forfeited this round.
Disquisition

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
Staoon

Con

Staoon forfeited this round.
Disquisition

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Disquisition 2 years ago
Disquisition
That really doesn't hold any water, for example a female frog releases thousands of eggs that develop into tadpoles. Do really think that when a few of those tadpoles grow into frogs they will have deep concern for one another?!?!?
Posted by MoBo 2 years ago
MoBo
NO! Animals should not be used for testing! Humans use animals to their own advantage, and noone ever thinks about what the animals think. They have their own families, friends, LIVES!! Animals should not be used for testing!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
StaoonDisquisitionTied
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: Pro, addressed essentially all of con's main argument and provided arguments that were left unrefuted by con, who forfeited the entire debate, losing him points in conduct. Sources also go to pro for actually providing sources.