The Instigator
immonica
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CrazeddRabbi
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 270 times Debate No: 81057
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

immonica

Con

Perhaps I just adore animals too much, but nevertheless animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they aren't meant to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, are KILLED at the conclusion of the experiment. Put this into persepctive with more than 115 million animals being used in this is NO small issue! Even if we were to vastly decrease the amount of animal experimentation, by releasing domesticated animals into the wild. These experiments are not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed.
CrazeddRabbi

Pro

To begin with, very few animals are actually used for testing, and there are highly regulated animal testing laws making sure that the used animals do not get mistreated. In fact, animal testing has even benefited animals. Millions of animals were saved due to animal testing, due to diseases like infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, and even rabies. Secondly, this has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Animal testing lead to the discovery of insulin (crucial for the survival of diabetics) and the polio vaccine, as well as helping us understand things such as brain injury, breast cancer, malaria, and many more. Lastly, it has to be the animals. We could not build or code a working human body, our bodies are just to complex. In sum, animal testing has saved millions of both human and animal lives, and comes at very little cost and risk.

Source (which you don't seem to have):
http://animal-testing.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 1
immonica

Con

immonica forfeited this round.
CrazeddRabbi

Pro

I see no reason to state anything this round if you have not.
Debate Round No. 2
immonica

Con

Alright, so for your main argument, you're saying that we are able to cure various diseases and continue to live at the sake of torturing and murdering the poor lives of the animals of the Earth. You people and your sick, twisted murder. How can you live with yourselves knowing that, because of you, many cows and pigs and chickens and monkeys and every other animal out in the world will die for your pathetic greed for a better life? These animals have just as much of a mind to survive as we do, which is why we should respect them for it. I see no reason why these poor animals should suffer the kind of abuse that they already do because of the selfish humanity that this world is made up of.
CrazeddRabbi

Pro

I get where you're coming from, I really do. But the thing is, we are helping by curing their diseases in the process as well, so in some cases it's a few die of abuse or a lot die from disease. Would you really rather have huge medical setbacks with thousands of people disabled or killed because we couldn't do proper research due to even stricter animal rights laws just to have a few less cases of animal abuse? I cannot stress this enough: It's not simply us or them, it's a lot of us or a few of them. I am going to use a similar scenario to explain this. There is a train chugging along a track. You realize that there are around fifty men working in a tunnel that the train will go into shortly, and that by the time that the men the train is coming it will be too late. However, you have the ability to switch the train to a different track and go through a different tunnel, where there are only a dozen men working. So the question is, do you let fifty die or murder a dozen?

Are you really telling me that you value the lives of animals more than the lives of your fellow men?
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CrazeddRabbi 1 year ago
CrazeddRabbi
@TBSmothers Thanks I'm new to debating.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
TBSmothers
@CrazeddRabbi your use of a source wasn't all that great, since it is unclear what the source is attached to, which is why I am unsure why you even mentioned immonica not using sources in the FIRST round. So here's my advice to you, always focus on your own errors before looking at your those of your opponent, It helps a lot.
Posted by immonica 1 year ago
immonica
Yeah, of course! @John_Royals
Posted by John_Royals 1 year ago
John_Royals
Interesting argument, may I propose a challenge?
No votes have been placed for this debate.