The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should animal testing be legal or illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,050 times Debate No: 20149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First round acceptance...


Animal Testing: The use of Animals without any consent towards the pain of animals to create medicines to eradicate different types of diseases

I thank my opponent for creating this interesting debate and I hope he has a good time with this debate as I will.

There are a few things I would like to address since the topic is a bit too broad and nothing has been clarified.

My opponent will be for "Animal testing should be legal" I will be for "Animal Testing should be Illegal"

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal's


1. There will be no abuse of semantics, advantages from the dictionary, verbal abuse or any form of offending or rude language

2. Any sources that have broken links (you cannot connect to the page) will be considered as an invalid source.

I hope that this clarifies this debate and I hope to have a fun debate with my opponent. Thank you for creating this debate Dizzle, I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Each day many people are saved from medication that are a result of animal testing. However, the controversy remains of how necessary it really is to continue the use of innocent animals for these tests. Should we develop another way of testing new medicine and products? What would the new test be and how accurate would the results be? Animal testing does not need to be the only way to solve medical problems but it is the best way to do it at this time.

Nearly every major medical advancement in the 20th century involved animal testing. Included in those evolutions are antibiotics, vaccines, and treatments for diabetes, epilepsy, asthma, and cancer. We could not save lives without these medicines and they have to be tested before they are released.

The numbers of animals that are used for testing each year are between 17-22 million. 61% of the animals used for testing feel no pain. 31% of research animals have their pain relieved by anesthesia. 6% of them experience pain as part of the research in the understanding of medication. For every one dog or cat used for research there are fifty destroyed by dog pounds.

"Sara" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer?
It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives.
According to Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS.
There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to

Thank you


renji_abarai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Speaking in support of animal research, McKellips said there are numerous benefits that have come from animal experimentation, including the development of treatments for life-threatening diseases.

"Twenty-five years ago, a young lady who gets diagnosed with breast cancer has just gotten a death sentence, and now, she may get cured. We have made such great strides and progress," McKellips said.

While few would argue against the pursuit of treatments for life-threatening diseases, there are many who are opposed to the methods that involve the use of animals, McKellips said.

"The public is clamoring for new medicines, but we don't want to talk about how we get there," McKellips said, pointing out that animal research studies are required for a drug to get FDA approval.

U.S. public polls revealed that public support of animal research has dropped from 64 percent in 2004 to 50 percent in 2010, McKellips said. In response, the foundation is seeking ways to draw attention to the issue of animal research.

Most people think that testing cosmetics on animals is a bad thing to do. But what they don't know is that when the animals are in the labs the scientists make their stay as best as possible. For example with chimps they give them ropes and things to climb and with the dogs they have people that play with them and the dogs can visit other dogs and they have people that walk the dogs.

Animal testing can help save peoples lives. Without it we don't know if a product is safe to use or not. They only way to tell would be to test them on ourselves. For example if scientists test a new drug that they think will cure a disease or sickness they can test it on an animal to see if their theory is right and if so they can use it on humans who have that sickness or disease. People will be able to use these new drugs to help them with their illness and even save some of their lives.

Even though there is no law saying that you have to test cosmetics on animals before you sell your product that would be very dangerous for humans. Imagine waking up in the morning and you put on your favorite eye shadow or you brush your teeth and then you have to pay for it by going blind or getting a type of cancer.

Thank you

Vote Pro


renji_abarai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Dizzle 4 years ago
But he's not posting his debate?
Posted by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
I wish I was in this debate, renji. There are so many things to refute in Dizzle's argument, lol.
Posted by renji_abarai 4 years ago
I shall set the rules and everything in place when I post my argument. I shall clarify the who has what position after talking with Dizzle. Every question should be cleared up after round 1 even though the topic is to broad.
Posted by Lavisnic 4 years ago
The topic is to broad-base to derived any fair debate on both sides. On one hand, what is wrong with animal testing. What are the reasons for testing animals and on what grounds can we say legal or illegal. Which animals specifically are we targeting. I mean rats are a dime dozen and a scourge on the face of the earth. Ain't nothing wrong with testing them. But testing them for what? On the other hand cows are tested to ensure that they are free of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Ain't nothing wrong with that because we certainly do not want to eat a piece of Mad Cow Disease beef. So a bit more depth please?
Posted by Dizzle 4 years ago
Posted by lexiforever96 4 years ago
I quit sorry
Posted by Dizzle 4 years ago
I am for animal testing in this specific debate.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
you aren't being specific enough. Clarify your side.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Are you for or against animal testing?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF