The Instigator
nerdydork4044
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Some_Confused_Kid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should animals be tested for scientific and/or commercial use?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 98802
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

nerdydork4044

Con

Hello, Challenger. You will be taking the position as the Pro (for) person. The first round will be basic. You will give information on your side of things, and cite some evidence. The second round will be basic also. On the third round we will give questions to our opponent, and in the fourth round, we will answer those questions.
Rules:
1) Uncited evidence is not allowed. PLEASE cite your evidence
2) You get two days to per round.
3) If you don't publish your argument in that amount of time, you forfeit.
If you have any questions about the rules, post them below.

Definitions:

*Animals: any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

*Scientific: of or relating to science or the sciences

*Commercial: of, relating to, or characteristic of commerce.

This round does not count but the next round (round two) does. To begin debating, in your argument below, put "i accept". We will start debating in round two.
Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
nerdydork4044

Con

From ProCon.org:

"According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means."
The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters."

This paragraph is saying that, according to the Humane Society International, animal testing is completely inhumane. It is making the animal open to different kinds of diseases.
Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

I wanna thank Con for making this debate. I will prove why Animal Testing is necessary.
Lets face it Animals are indeed quite similar to us. Chimpanzee has 99% of there DNA match with humans. Mices also has 98% of there DNA match with humans.So why did I bring it?.I brought up to show you that because that means animals are susceptible to human problems.Such as Disease,which is a big one.

Animals have a shorter life stand than us humans.That means we can study multiple generations or throughout there life stand. We can also change there environment that means diet,temperature,climate,and lighting.This is important because it would be much more difficult with human testing.

It is estimated that 17 and 23 millions animals are used for research.Now a large majority don't capture animals in the wild for testing.95% of those animals are mices and mouse specifically bred for research.4.25% of those animals are rabbits,guinea pigs,insects and other species.Thankfully only 0.75% are cats,dogs,and primates.

Now why can't we stop animal testing?.The organ systems are very complex to predict the course of the diseases,or effects of treatment with study.With out animal testing we will be very set back on research.Here are some examples on animal testing that helped find treatments or cures for these diseases.

Asthma-"Study's on guinea pigs and non human primates that led to the development of leukotienereceptor
antagonists."In which got approved in late 1990s that helped treating mild to severe asthma effectively.

Vaccines:In the early 1900's scientist extracted spinal cord fluid on a dead boy who died from Polio.At the 1950 after many Animal test they were able to make a polio vaccine.

Now does animal testing only benefits humans?.No using animal testing that helped preventing and treating human diseases has helped animal lives improved.In fact more than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans has now used to help animals.

Sources: http://www.ca-biomed.org...
https://www.aphis.usda.gov...
http://www.humanesociety.org...
Debate Round No. 2
nerdydork4044

Con

From ProCon.org:

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals.

95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA.

From onegreenpanet.org:

Alternative testing technologies exist.

Humane alternatives are out there, and they’re becoming more accurate as technology improves. Here’s just a sampling of some of the new testing technologies that have the potential to replace animal experimentation for good:

  • A newly developed technology created by professor James Hickman, at the University of Central Florida, mimics standard human muscular function which allows researchers to monitor muscular function and its response to different treatments without using human or animal subjects.
  • Bioengineering PhD student Alan Faulkner-Jones began pioneering the use of 3-D printing to replace medical animal testing.
  • A team of Maryland scientists is “using adult stem cells that can grow into cells from just about any of the body’s organs, which they believe will allow them to more accurately and more quickly test effects of a toxin or a drug–potentially any substance–on a person, eliminating the need for animal subjects.”

Entire organizations such as New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), to name a few, are dedicated to raising awareness about animal testing and supporting and developing humane and accurate alternatives, which are becoming increasingly available. Soon, there will be no excuse not to use alternatives.


What I have To Say:

According to both of these sources, there are alternatives to animal testing.





Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

I wanna thank Con for this debate,and hope they have fun.I will refute some of Cons claims
"Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used,"

Though the Vitro testing will help reduce the need for Animal testing it will never replace animal testing.A drug might work on a cell but will it work the same on a body?.The cell has no body systems like circulatory,Nervous system or even a organ like a liver.The test tube can not feel pain or be present. We don't know if it will work on a living creature unless we test. Weather it be us or the Animals it will not replace animal testing.

"95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA."

Yes it is true that 95% of animals in Experminet are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act they are protected by Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.Now Animal testing is expensive.You must feed the Animals,house,and cared by veterinarians.So they rely on Government funding but to get government funding they follow the PHS Policy.The policy requires a animal care and welfare program that follows the Guide For The Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.This Policy apply to rats,mices,birds,and even cold blooded vertebrates animals such as fish and reptiles.If the Labortory fails to provide a good care for the animals they must give all the money back to the animals.
Debate Round No. 3
nerdydork4044

Con

It is now time for the question round.
In the question round, we have to ask each other five questions about what we have debated about. We are each supposed to name all of the five questions in this round. In the next round, we will answer this questions. DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS UNTIL THE NEXT ROUND.

My questions:
1. Since you have already said that alternative methods are available, why don't they use those methods?
2. You have also said that many animals are either covered by the AWA (Animal Welfare Act) or the PHS (Public Health Service). How do you supposed that it is still legal to do animal testing on those animals if they are covered by laws like those?
3. You have said that animal testing is very expensive. How do you suppose that animal testing is right if it costs so much money?
4. Why do we still need animal testing if we have all the technology that we need to do virtual animal testing?
5. How does animal testing fit in the modern world that we live in?
Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

Questions:
1.Is vitro test more accurate than animal testing
2.What is the statistic that animals in animal testing are really abused
3.How do you know those alternate technologys work
4.If they do switch to alternatives how do we know the drugs works on a body with its complex organs?
5.Is 3-D mapping accurate and can it show the complex nature of the organs?
Debate Round No. 4
nerdydork4044

Con

1. Is vitro tests more accurate than animal testing?
Answer:
The answer to that is yes. According to neavs.com,vitro testing is more accurate than animal testing. "
To predict toxicity, corrosivity, and other safety variables as well as the effectiveness of a new product for humans, traditional testing of chemicals, consumer products, medical devices, and new drugs has involved the use of animals. But today, scientists have developed and validated alternative methods shown to lead to safer and more effective products and drugs for humans than animal testing. For example, skin corrosivity and irritation can be easily measured using three-dimensional human skin equivalent systems such as EpiDerm and SkinEthic. Additional alternatives include EpiSkin (a model of reconstructed human epithelium) and a variety of sophisticated, computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models that predict skin corrosivity and irritation by means of correlating a new drug or chemical with its likely activity, properties, and effects with classification accuracy between 90 and 95 percent." (from www.neav.com)
2. What is the statistic that animals in animal testing are really abused?
Answer :
The statistics that the animals are being abused is "Every year in the U.S., over 25 million animals are used in biomedical experimentation, product and cosmetic testing, and science education. This includes—dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, sheep, monkeys, chimpanzees, and more. However, the majority of animals in labs (over 90 percent) are rats, mice, and birds. Some estimates place them in the tens to hundreds of millions." (from www.neavs.org) Message me if that didn't answer your question.


3. How do you know these alternate technologies work?
Answer: I can not answer that question. I do not practice animal testing or the alternative tests.


4. If they do switch to alternatives, how do we know the drugs work on a body with its complex organs?

Answer:

I do not know the answer.

5. Is 3-D mapping accurate, and can it show the complex nature of the organs?
(From www.nature.com) Additive manufacturing, otherwise known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, is driving major innovations in many areas, such as engineering, manufacturing, art, education and medicine. Recent advances have enabled 3D printing of biocompatible materials, cells and supporting components into complex 3D functional living tissues. 3D bioprinting is being applied to regenerative medicine to address the need for tissues and organs suitable for transplantation. Compared with non-biological printing, 3D bioprinting involves additional complexities, such as the choice of materials, cell types, growth and differentiation factors, and technical challenges related to the sensitivities of living cells and the construction of tissues. Addressing these complexities requires the integration of technologies from the fields of engineering, biomaterials science, cell biology, physics and medicine. 3D bioprinting has already been used for the generation and transplantation of several tissues, including multilayered skin, bone, vascular grafts, tracheal splints, heart tissue and cartilaginous structures. Other applications include developing high-throughput 3D-bioprinted tissue models for research, drug discovery and toxicology.


Now it is your turn to answer my questions!

Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

Question:
1. Since you have already said that alternative methods are available, why don't they use those methods?

Answer:As said those Alternatives tend to complement or refining it rather than replacing Animals.Such as computer modeling but we need those animal research to make the program itself.All the things you said as alternatives can reduce the animals but can't replace it.

2. You have also said that many animals are either covered by the AWA (Animal Welfare Act) or the PHS (Public Health Service). How do you supposed that it is still legal to do animal testing on those animals if they are covered by laws like those?

Answer:It is legal do those testing under strict regulations such as AWA (Animal Welfare Act) it requires those animals with good food,shelter,and veterinary care and regular inspections of the labs and the animal suppliers.Same thing with PHS (Public Health Service) they must follow this book here is the link https://www.nap.edu... . Failure to follow those guidelines is giving back the money the government gives you.

3. You have said that animal testing is very expensive. How do you suppose that animal testing is right if it costs so much money?

Answer: The reason it cost so much is to provide the animals food,water,shelter,and professional veterinary care.It is right because animals provide us research to find diseases like in my first argument without animal testing we wouldn't have treatment for mild to severe asthma.It is right because we are finding ways to both improve animal and human right so the money is worth it.
4. Why do we still need animal testing if we have all the technology that we need to do virtual animal testing?

Answer:Like I said on question one it will only reduce not replace the Animal testing.So it is not a alternative.

.5. How does animal testing fit in the modern world that we live in?

Answer:Animal testing fit in the world we live in.There will always be disease and health problems.Since animals have most of the DNA like Mice we use them for drugs and cures.Until we can discover a way that doesn't reduce animals but makes it that we don't need one there will always be animal testing.We wouldnt have most of our treatments and cures are by animal testing.

Cites and sources for 3rd-5th round:
https://speakingofresearch.com...
http://www.animalresearchcures.org...
http://www.ca-biomed.org...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both sides had excellent conduct, so it is tied. Spelling and grammar: Con gets S&G points because several times pro did not add a space after the period at the end of this sentence. Con did this, too, but not nearly as much as pro did. Arguments: I think I will go pro on this one. Both sides had great arguments, and it was tied for a while. However, when con failed to answer all of pro's questions in the fifth round, AND pro was able to answer all of con's questions, was when Pro took the lead. Sources: They both used very reliable sources, so it is tied.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide a reason why one side"s argument was difficult to understand as a result of how it was written. Lacking a space after several periods at the end of a sentence is not clearly an issue that would engender such difficulties, and when both sides are doing it, it"s difficult to state that one side uniquely created that difficulty. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Stating that one side didn"t answer some questions and the other did is not specific, especially without explaining why those questions were important to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 1 year ago
Some_Confused_Kid
Okay it is not allowing me to post my questions because it is not my turn to post my arguments?
Posted by ChadIrvin 1 year ago
ChadIrvin
I'm confused. I'm assuming this is a debate about animal testing, but the first paragraph says something about school uniforms.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
First paragraph should be edited
No votes have been placed for this debate.