The Instigator
OliveJuice
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Z4RQUON
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should Noxious Animal Testing Be Made Illegal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Z4RQUON
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 51410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

OliveJuice

Pro

"Pro": Noxious animal testing should be made illegal.
"Con": Noxious animal testing should not be made illegal.

Debate-Related Definitions and Boundaries
Noxious: Physically or mentally harmful towards any of those involved, generally animals due to the nature of the topic.
Animal Testing: The use of living, non-human animals for any physical study. Again, we're alluding to harmful studies, not "hands-off" research.

* Positions listed above are essentially a flexible outline, but stance on the matter must be clearly defined by the opponent taking on the opposite position prior to and during the first round of the argument.

* Additional ideas related to the topic may be explored during the discussion. However, please stick to the main idea and opinions in order for a successful debate and minimal confusion.

* I ask that proper English grammar be used, as well as valuable sources of information (in-text citations are acceptable) and reasonably structured arguments.

* Please, no plagiarism or offensive language.

Argument Time: 72 Hours
Character Max: 8,000
Voting Period: 10 Days
Rounds: 4

Round #1: Claims
Round #2: Warrants
Round #3: Refutations
Round #4: Conclusions

* Forfeited rounds will be skipped. If you forfeit, attempt to briefly make up for lost time in the beginning of your next argument, then continue with your next round.

Best of luck,
(:
Z4RQUON

Con

Noxious Animal Testing should NOT be made illegal because it helps to eliminate dangers to humans. Without testing on non-human animals, that testing would still actually take place but it would be on human subjects as they buy and use potentially dangerous products. The total amount of suffering experienced by animal test subjects is less than the total amount of suffering that would be experienced by humans buying untested products.
Debate Round No. 1
OliveJuice

Pro

"Noxious Animal Testing should NOT be made illegal because it helps to eliminate dangers to humans."

How so? You have yet to have provided proof for a single one of your claims. Non-human animal bodies do not work the same as human's bodies do. For example, chocolate is toxic to most animals but safe for human consumption. This means that animal testing is highly inaccurate and irrelevant to human health.

"Without testing on non-human animals, that testing would still actually take place but it would be on human subjects as they buy and use potentially dangerous products. The total amount of suffering experienced by animal test subjects is less than the total amount of suffering that would be experienced by humans buying untested products."

First of all, give me one solid reason why non-human animals deserve to suffer more than humans do. Secondly, people purchase potentially dangerous products on a regular basis regardless of animal testing. Olestra serves as a great example; if you have not heard of olestra, it is a chemical food additive that was first picked up by the Frito-Lays company and remains FDA-approved. It eliminates all calories, cholesterol, and fat from the food that it is present in. However, it rids of the body of the ability to absorb essential nutrients from food. Side affects associated with the additive include cramps, gas, and loose bowels. Many substances of human consumption are harmful whether the consumers realize it or not, yet they are still readily available. Animal testing would not prevent most things of this nature, so this would not at all protect humans from harm. Logically, if you do not know what is in the products you are purchasing, you accept the risks; this fault may or may not be at the hands of the consumer, but it does not lie in the hands of testing a product. If it is presumed to be unsafe or requires careful testing to prove that it is, it probably should not have a place on store shelves. Add this to the chocolate reference and it does not make sense for animals to be used in the lab in order to prove products' safety to humans.
Z4RQUON

Con

The chemical in chocolate, theobromine, that makes animals sick actually IS somewhat toxic to humans as well but in higher doses. Having one example of a scenario where noxious animal testing may be irrelevent does not mean it can never be useful. A test can be blunt and still be useful. For example, bringing a canary down a mineshaft was certainly a good use of noxious animal testing which saved lives.

//"First of all, give me one solid reason why non-human animals deserve to suffer more than humans do."//

I'm not arguing that.

//"Secondly, people purchase potentially dangerous products on a regular basis regardless of animal testing. Olestra... picked up by the Frito-Lays company and remains FDA-approved."//

This does not indicate a problem with what a particular organization does (or rather does not do) with information once it is learned, not a problem with how they learned it.

//"Logically, if you do not know what is in the products you are purchasing, you accept the risks; this fault may or may not be at the hands of the consumer, but it does not lie in the hands of testing a product. If it is presumed to be unsafe or requires careful testing to prove that it is, it probably should not have a place on store shelves."//

Let's forget that we're talking about non-human animals for a second here, let's pretend we live in a world where we do these tests on people instead, and I have accidentally manufactured a new product of some-kind that I do not realize is extremely poisonous. There are two options: A) release the product blindly, only to realize that , after 100 people have been poisoned, that this product needs to be recalled. OR B) Test it on 10 people, in various doses, to see if and at what quantities it is dangerous and then we can place a "poison" sticker on the bottle so that the other 90 people were never poisoned.

You are choosing option A because the people being tested in option B, are actually furry animals.
Debate Round No. 2
OliveJuice

Pro

OliveJuice forfeited this round.
Z4RQUON

Con

My argument stands.
Debate Round No. 3
OliveJuice

Pro

My apologies for the delay; I was not at home nor did I have access to a computer.

"The chemical in chocolate, theobromine, [sic] that makes animals sick actually IS [sic] somewhat toxic to humans as well but in higher doses. Having one example of a scenario where noxious animal testing may be irrelevent [sic] does not mean it can never be useful. A test can be blunt and still be useful. For example, bringing a canary down a mineshaft was certainly a good use of noxious animal testing which saved lives."

While this may or may not have been useful, it does not refute against my point that it is wrong to use animals in testing that may harm or kill them. This draws us back to the question mentioned earlier: is a human life more valuable than the life of any other species? Similar to what you stated, having one example of a beneficial study in which animals were used does not mean that it is always useful. Furthermore, there are a plethora of examples that emphasize how animals in the lab is not a great method of research, one of which is the well-known charity, March of Dimes (MOD). What remains less mainstream about this organization is its proven history of animal testing. As stated by The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), "The March of Dimes spends up to $30 million of your donations annually on animal experiments that can potentially mislead and hinder progress for humans." An article published by The Journal mentions, "Animal studies can be dangerous and put babies at risk. The antibiotic streptomycin was tested on dogs, Guinea pigs and pigs, and deemed 'safe' for people. But infants who were given the drug suffered brain damage, went deaf or blind or died." PCRM also noted that, "After years of funding experiments sewing the eyes of newborn kittens closed, the March of Dimes found that cats have little capacity for regaining sight...After being safety-tested on several species of animals, drugs like diethylstilbestrol (DES) and common antibiotics like tetracycline and streptomycin were approved for human use. Each of these and many others were later found to cause birth defects in humans...The discoveries that folic acid prevents neural tube defects, that magnesium sulfate helps prevent cerebral palsy and mental retardation, and that maternal smoking, alcohol use, and drug abuse cause increased infant mortality were all achieved using human-based methods." What is being said here is that their usage of animals as a means of medical research is ineffective. This sheds light on the topic and how it should be resolved; human research improves human medical knowledge.

"I'm not arguing that."

"Noxious Animal Testing should NOT be made illegal because it helps to eliminate dangers to humans. Without testing on non-human animals, that testing would still actually take place but it would be on human subjects as they buy and use potentially dangerous products. The total amount of suffering experienced by animal test subjects is less than the total amount of suffering that would be experienced by humans buying untested products." You are clearly implying that humans are more valuable by stating that animals should suffer so that humans do not have to.


"This does not indicate a problem with what a particular organization does (or rather does not do) with information once it is learned, not a problem with how they learned it."

This sentence is rather confusing, but I am assuming that you meant Olestra only indicates a problem with post-research, not the research itself. However, my point was that the this type of research is pointless in the hands of the public and companies are aware of it; regardless of testing, people still purchase the product even if the research proves that it is dangerous to consume.

"Let's forget that we're talking about non-human animals for a second here, let's pretend we live in a world where we do these tests on people instead, and I have accidentally manufactured a new product of some-kind that I do not realize is extremely poisonous. There are two options: A) release the product blindly, only to realize that , after 100 people have been poisoned, that this product needs to be recalled. OR B) Test it on 10 people, in various doses, to see if and at what quantities it is dangerous and then we can place a "poison" sticker on the bottle so that the other 90 people were never poisoned. You are choosing option A because the people being tested in option B, are actually furry animals."

How you accidentally manufacture something, I'm not quite sure. Also, it should most definitely be taken into consideration that animal testing is not wrong simply because animals are furry; I am quite aware that I have never stated this. This analogy does not necessarily work the same because of the selection between different species. Even if it did, what is the point of testing something and taking lives while doing so just to place the item on the shelves anyway? This analogy is closer to the actual situation at hand but, simultaneously, nearly the opposite: option A consists of 100 non-human animals (say dogs, for example) and option B consists of ten humans. If option A is chosen, no research will be performed on a potentially harmful (and also potentially innocuous) new product. If option B is chosen, research will be conducted on the ten humans that may very easily put their lives in danger as well as that of all the other possible future consumers, due to the fact that this type of research has been proven invalid. Most people will choose option A in order to protect humans, rather than the dogs simply because they are not of the human species. As maintained by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), "The use of animals in laboratories often amounts to legally-sanctioned animal abuse. The secrecy with which animals in laboratories are kept from the public eye is no accident: an estimated 100 million animals are exploited in biomedical, aeronautic, automotive, military, agricultural, and cognitive research and in consumer product testing"95% of these animals are not protected by the law." If these actions occurred outside of the laboratory, the general population would agree that it is morally wrong, but this practice is protected simply because it is happening in labs. People involved in the animals' research studies are actively keeping them out of sight to protect their practices which, again, are legalized because they occur inside of a science-related facility. ALDF also covered experiments that are not quite as legal, "Given the climate of poor regulatory oversight, many animals are also abused, neglected, and harmed in ways that violate the law. In 2012, monkeys were boiled alive when sent through scalding-hot mechanical cage washers, while others overheated to death in poor laboratory conditions. Other examples include open-heart surgeries without painkillers and unauthorized amputations." However, these operations are not being questioned because they are commonly supported in order to further science. The problem with this is that experiments involving non-human subjects are, once again, not reliable! With the vast field of science so quickly expanding, there are many possibilities for studying without the use of live animals. Research that harms any animal (human species included) is simply an immediate answer to an unsolved case; this dilemma requires more brainstorming, time, and attention.
Z4RQUON

Con

//"While this may or may not have been useful, it does not refute against my point that it is wrong to use animals in testing that may harm or kill them."//

I do not need to refute your point that animal testing is "wrong"... the subject of the debate is should it be made "illegal" and you have not made a connection between morality, ethics and the law. Still waiting. As far as I am concerned the government's job is to represent the taxpayers and performing this testing on the taxpayers themselves would not be in their best interest.

//"You are clearly implying that humans are more valuable "//

An attitude of "better them than me" does not mean 'they' deserve to suffer. As I said, this is not being argued. It simply does not make sense to test a potentially dangerous product on your customers, the people you are seeking to impress.

//"what is the point of testing something and taking lives while doing so just to place the item on the shelves anyway?"//

As my analogy illustrates, less damage is done by that one product as a result.

//"The problem with this is that experiments involving non-human subjects are, once again, not reliable! "//

I have already given an example -- a canary in a coal mine -- which easily refutes this bald, unqualified assertion. Your immunity to facts and logic betray your superstitious approach to this debate topic.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by OliveJuice 3 years ago
OliveJuice
@Zaradi, first round is acceptance.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
So basically first round is for acceptance. Pump it up to 10k and I'll accept.
Posted by OliveJuice 3 years ago
OliveJuice
Actually, I did. I chose the Pro/For position and clearly stated at the very top of the debate what each position would represent and claim.

Here's a refresher:
'Pro': Noxious animal testing should be made illegal.
'Con': Noxious animal testing should not be made illegal.
Posted by Priceless 3 years ago
Priceless
It's an issue because you haven't made a claim yet in the first round, even though you claimed that the first round would be claims
Posted by OliveJuice 3 years ago
OliveJuice
It was setup so that we have three rounds, not four. Why is that a problem? I do not wish to create a whole new debate, although I have the ability to edit this one so long as no one accepts the other position until then.
Posted by Priceless 3 years ago
Priceless
Hi I will gladly debate this with you! However, I was wondering if you wanted to create a new debate with five rounds so that way the first round will simply be acceptance, then we can go into the actual debate. Because as of right now we only have three rounds to debate. If that's fine with you, it's okay with me, I figured I'd ask before we debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
OliveJuiceZ4RQUONTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct due to the forfeiture. Con's arguments were substantially better than Pro's.