The Instigator
ANONYMOUS2282
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sashil
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Sashil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,224 times Debate No: 56808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

ANONYMOUS2282

Pro

first is acceptance
Sashil

Con

I accept. PRO shall make his case.


Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ANONYMOUS2282

Pro

Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade, for instance:

1.We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body

2.Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma

3.While non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals

4.Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago

5.While Fleming discovered penicillin without using animals, he shared the Nobel Prize with Florey and Chain who, by testing it on mice, discovered how penicillin could be used to fight infections inside the body

6.Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals

7.Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise

8.Modern anesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development

9.Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals

10.Scanning techniques including CT and MRI were developed using non-human animals

As you can see we actually increased our medical capabilities by a lot just with testing on animals. Also may i add that there are many, many, many mice- over one billion, so i don't think that science is causing an extinction over any animal they tests.

Can i ask you a personal question Sashil. Are you catholic or christian? Do you believe in "God" or a "God"? i will explain in my next response why i have asked this.

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...
http://wiki.answers.com...
Sashil

Con

Case: Animals should not be used for research





Preface


I would like to thank PRO for instigating this debate and allowing me to argue
on a matter about which I hadn't, up untill now, given much thoughts

about.I have certainly learned alot and am looking forward to having a good time
with this debate.


Now lets just cut to the chase without any furthur delay.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My case is as represented by this syllogism

P1 : Killing or toruring animals is cruel and unethical.
P2 : Animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research.
C1 : Using animals for research is cruel and unethical.
P3(a) : Animal research is expensive and unreliable.
P3(b) : Advancements in science and technology has brought about alternatives for the expensive,immoral and unreliable method of using animals for research
animal research
C2 : Animals need no longer be used in research

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

And now i will be offering arguments for each of my premises.

Premise 1:

Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain and distress it is unethical and immoral to exploit their lives for our benifits.Research on animals
involves them undergoing a great deal of hardship,pain and possibly meeting their deaths in an unnatural way.
Human beings consider themselves superior to animals based on the fact that we have the ability to reason and have greater intellect however, science has 
shown that animals can have cognitive faculties that are much superior to human beings[1].Animals in actaulity possess abilities that are only different
from that of a human They are not inferior and have only been under-rated due to humans' fixation on language and technology.Animals also show incredible social and
kinaesthetic intelligence, only that, their way is quite different and divergent from ours because of which their abilities are belittled and go unacknowledged[1].A quick read throught these two
articles

Article 1: http://www.cracked.com...

Article 2: http://www.buzzfeed.com...

is enough to realize how varied yet phenominal some of their capabilities are.Animals are intelligent in their own ways and assuming them to be inferioir to
us and exploiting the fact that they are defenceless for our own gains is extremely preposterous, inhumane and egocentric.

___________________________________________________________________________________________


Premise 2:


Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are traumatized
and killed in the United States itself in laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and
cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled
into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in
laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically
traumatized. The sentient thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.[2]


Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect
animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the most commonly used
species in laboratory experiments (mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal
Animal Welfare Act (AWA).[2]



I think this report sums up and proves beyond any rational doubts that animals are being killed and tortured in the name of animal research.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Premise 3(a,b):


Gallup polls have found that more than 40 percent of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the
shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress.The reality is that the
majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical
advances is questionable[2]

according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, “We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in
humans.” This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on
animals has been a boondoggle. “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he said. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. …
The problem is that it 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.”[2]

[2]The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2013, every one has failed to
demonstrate a benefit to humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did
not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper
The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that “testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work.”[2]

These are not anomalies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we
cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.”[2]

Also the animals that are to be used for testing have to be bred and kept alive till they are needed and because of this animal research becomes very
expensive.Most of the money that goes into Animal research comes from the pockets of the public with or without their knowledge.

[2]Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly
—fund animal experimentation.[2]

But luckily with the advancements in medical and scientific research, forward thinking scientists have developed more humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods and alternatives for the expensive,outdated and unreliable method of animal research.Two major alternatives in vivo-animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. Other
alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called
microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body
effects.[3]These methods have proved to be cheaper faster and more accurate than animal research


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Rebuttals:


PRO's arguments were mainly centered around mice and animal testing used in the medical field, I would like to remind PRO that mice are not the only animal
species that are being used for research and animal research is used not only in the medical field but also in the cosmetics and consumer production
area.This means lives are being tortured and sacrificed merely for humans to maybe look good in the next party we go.The world doesn’t need another
eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals’ lives.

Addressing to PRO's arguments about animal research finding cure for some diseases,something which offers a few advantages but the disadvantages outweigh the
advantages, on the whole, is still disadvantageous.Animal research may have been the cause of curing some deseases, Yes, but at what costs?Hundreds of failed
experiments with probably thousands or even more animals brought to UNnatural deaths just to save a few people from dying 'Naturally-brought-deaths',How is
this worth the price?.

Also PRO's job is to show that animals SHOULD be used for research.And in order to fulfil his BOP he must argue for the animals as whole and all researches

that involve animals.Only then will he meet his BOP.





Sources:
1 : http://phys.org...


2 : http://www.peta.org...

3 : http://en.wikipedia.org...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And answering to your questions,I'm neither and I believe in 'a god',if you have furthur questions like these you can just shoot me a message I'll be glad to
address them.Back to you PRO!


























Debate Round No. 2
ANONYMOUS2282

Pro

I will skip to rebuttals and leave my argument to the last part if that wouldn't be a problem?

P1: You say "torturing" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not scientist they are psychopaths, but the last time i checked, i didn't see buffalo bill or the Texas chainsaw massacre guy testing animals, the experts were real scientist with real diplomas "EXPERIMENTING" on animals for a "REAL" purpose. The only things that scientists actually do in most animal tests are injections, blood sampling and surgeries. Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but the deaths dont affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5 million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't affected by the science. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world only 75,000 dogs are used in testing, again i never heard on a dog going extinct. there are 58,372,106 horses in the world. only 25 thousand are used for research. Now i can keep going on and on about animals but the main point im trying to say is this: Animals die, plants die, people die, you can't stop anything from death. What i am wondering is why i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get tested on as well as animals. Sure you care about that homeless dog. what about that ant hill in your back yard are you going to take them in too and feed them. While your helping those ants get some venomous snakes that help us in loads of research i'm sure they would love your help to.

P2: You are just repeating P1. not a valid argument.

C1: again repeating P1. What is the matter running out of stuff to say?

P3(a): You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a valid argument. i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1 experiment that was "unreliable" there are BILLIONS of experiment

P3(b): You are just reapeating again and again on your other points so again, not valid.

And i would like to rebuttal your rebuttals.

i would like to tell you about the AWA also known as the Animal Welfare Act which is the only U.S. federal law that covers animals in research. Formed and signed in 1966, it regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. I will also like to add that this law states that it is REQUIRED that animal testing MUST HAPPEN before a human can eat it, drink it, inject it. Now i would like to tell you that there are 7 billion people in the world. 300 million people live in the U.S. now awnser me this Sashil: are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN people per year?Ii know you want to save milo and otis and all the other animals out there... but is it really worth it?

http://www.neavs.org...
http://www.animalaid.org.uk...
google.com
http://www.peta.org...
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...
Sashil

Con

Perhaps PRO is not familiar with syllogisms and how they work. I wish he


would have had done a little research about them and read my premises a


little more carefully before saying things like, 'You are repeating


yourself' or 'You are running out of points' and making himself look


ignorant.
Regardless, I move on to my counter rebuttals directly as I believe


negating PRO's rebuttals will wrap up this debate for my side as the


arguments he presents in his rebuttals are seeming to be the only


substantial points currently in his case. Still, Pro has also made some


insensitive assertions, and his stand continues to be quite


unrealistic. My focus in this round would be pointing these out and tying


up the loose ends.



Counter Rebuttals:
(I've indicated the statements made by PRO by using Italics and underling them)



You say "torturing" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal


and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not


scientist they are psychopaths

This claim is irrational and groundless and works on the bias that


scientists will always adopt the best method that offers the least


torment to animals. Scientists chose the best method that suits their


experiments not the one that suits their subjects in their experiments


i.e, animals. And if the experiment involves infliction of pain or anguish


to animals, they'll do it anyway, simply because they are scientists and


that is their work. Even manufacturing of simple cosmetic products such as


shampoos involve great stress to animals.

When testing shampoo on animals you don't simple rub it on their fur. It


usually involves applying chemicals or products to animals’ shaved skin


or eyes. In one of the most commonly used tests, researchers put


chemicals into their eyes and record the state of the injured eye for 21


days.[1]

This completely nullifies the argument by PRO that animals are not tortured


in animal research. Obviously, as humans, we are primarily concerned with


our own well-being, but how far should we go in our efforts? Animal


Research mostly ends with the amputation, disfiguration or death of the


animal involved all of which are immoral and can be accounted as cruel


and brutal.




Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but


the deaths don’t affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5


million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research


not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't


affected by the science.

Population isn't the question here. Whether it be the whole population or a


few thousands, animals are being tortured and put into extreme agony in


the name of animal research.




i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get


tested on as well as animals.

Insects aren't the part of the resolution here and is


unassociated to the case but I would be glad to extend the same arguments


for insects too, what other people care(PETA in this case) is irrelevant.




Furthermore, I would like bring the reader's attention the fact that my argument about animals


being equal to human being and not inferior, has not been addressed or


refuted by PRO this means that my argument stands and that my adversary


has conceded to it.This without any rational doubt clears my point that


using animals for research and subjecting them to trauma,tortue and death


is, just as the reasoning would be for humans , immoral and injust.





You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a


valid argument.

I never said it because it was never necessary. I only needed to SHOW


that animal testing was more expensive than the alternatives I suggested,


and which i successfully did.





i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1


experiment that was "unreliable" there are BILLIONS of experiment

[2]The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100


drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.[2]Scientists use animals in


biological and medical research more as a matter of tradition and not


because animal research has proved particularly successful or better than


other modes of experimentation.[3] Not only is animal experimentation


morally wrong, but many of its failures have actually negatively affected


people.
One example is the failure of animal testing with the drug thalidomide


that happened in the 1960s. According to the organization "Animal Friends


Croatia," scientists had created thalidomide to help stop morning


sickness for pregnant women.
Even though it was tested on many species of animals before it could be


purchased, "it caused an estimated 10,000 birth defects and thousands of


fetal deaths worldwide." Many of the babies suffered from phocomelia, a


disease that does not allow their limbs to develop correctly.[3]I think


that sums up everything and satisfies PRO's queries.





are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR


CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN


people per year?

This argument is fallacious and is PRO's attempt to appeal to emotions. I


request PRO to back his claims with logical arguments instead of


emotionally persuasive language with the purpose of drawing visceral feelings from the reader.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Addenda :


Now that my main dissensions have been done and dusted I will now try to


address dispel some of the myths that I've seen lots of people housing in


their minds and using as arguments for animal testing.(I've indicated the statements by using Italics and underling them)


[1]Animal testing exclusively involves mice and rats.


Companies that conduct animal testing use many different species. After


mice and rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and dogs are the most commonly used


animals.



Animals can't feel pain.


A recent experiment found that when mice are exposed to painful stimuli,


they display facial expressions very similar to those humans show when in


pain. Research has also found that many animals even suffer from


depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders in laboratories.



All animals in laboratories have some legal protection.

The only federal law that applies to animals used for testing is the


Animal Welfare Act, which only regulates cage size, cleanliness, and food


and water, but does not limit the procedures that can be done. This law


excludes rats, mice, birds, cold-blooded animals, and animals commonly


killed for food—so rats and mice, the animals most commonly used in


toxicity tests, are not even given minimal protections.


Animals are well cared for and are given anesthesia or painkillers during

tests.


Generally, animals are not given anesthesia even during extremely painful


tests.


Some animals get to live happy lives once they are not needed for any

more testing.

Every year, millions of animals used for testing are killed during the


experiment or soon after.


Testing cosmetics on animals tells us whether the products are safe
.

It’s difficult to interpret what animal test results mean for humans,


because each species reacts differently to various substances.



There aren't any alternatives to animal tests.

There are many cheaper and faster alternative methods that produce more


accurate information. Examples include artificial human skin and robotic


technology that can screen thousands of chemicals at once using cells


grown in the lab.


Companies always use the most current testing methods.

Many companies continue to test chemicals and products using animal-based


tests developed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.[1]



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conclusion:

All of PRO's arguments for his case has been firmly rebutted and he


already lost the debate when he failed to dispute and thus by default


concede my point about animals being equal to human beings and not


inferior.PRO has also only taken the medical side of animal research and


has failed to address to other areas where animal research is involved


such as cosmetics and consumer production, thus failing to meet his BoP.

I thank PRO for organizing this debate and I would like him to know that


I had a great time debating this subject.

Cheers!








Sources:

[1]: https://www.dosomething.org...
[2]: http://www.peta.org...
[3]: http://northernstar.info...


Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
gorant
Animal testing should be banned as soon as possible. And Con done excellent job. Great !!

I wish everyone should become Pro for human testing and Con for animal testing !!!
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
Now there is another vote bomb with no RFD.......You should have kept a ELO limit of atleast 2k for voting before this debate began.
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
ANONYMOUS2282
i just talked with tanked he gonna take it off but wants defro to take of his vote as well
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
ANONYMOUS2282
there som1 made it even there is still 9 days left thou

and yes we are friends but that dosent mean i support his every choice we make
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
I have done so.But as I see from your profile that you and this voter are friends and have debated together more than once.I don't suppose you have anything to do this would you? My apologies if I'm wrong but the incredible bias to your side in the vote has lead me to believe so.
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
ANONYMOUS2282
report the vote then
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
And still he hasn't given a proper RFD for me losing all seven points in this debate!!
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
He did! and then the vote got removed and he voted again but this time removing the previous statement that I mentioned.I have proof here http://i.imgur.com...
As you can see he has clearly voted the second time and when doing so has edited his RFD
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
ANONYMOUS2282
he didnt say any of those things?????
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
"conduct for pro for not forfeiting. pro used more sources than con" LOL ?? I feel this vote is quite biased and unjust.The reason provided is rather preposterous.I hope this debate gets some legitimate and pragmatic voters before the voting period ends.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
ANONYMOUS2282SashilTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is Just A reminder for me to vote later on.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
ANONYMOUS2282SashilTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Going to vote some time later.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ANONYMOUS2282SashilTied
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: con barraged pro with so much arguments pro didn't manage to respond to them all, and he thus had a weaker argument overall