Yes they should if it could help save thousands of lives. If it was your son or daughter would you like them to have tested the surgery on something else. If it's brand new then you no idea what could happen, and that makes everyone including the doctors nervous.
What about the animals, its not really right because their a lesser species that they should be tested on. Who made us the ones to decide who should experiment on these animals. Also, the anatomy of animals is far different then ours. Plus, they function differently, who are we to know if the experiment were to work.
If we kill animals for food it's survival of the fittest. Testing them for our life is survival of the fittest. We are the better species our form of communication is more complex than any other species. If it's for a greater cause then we should use our resources to save lives.
Animal testing in no way can be survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is to kill another for ones health, were not killing for our health were killing for the health of a select few. Besides how f*caked up is that were pretty much cutting up the animal fiddling with its heart and throwing it away. Were wasting good use of something.
Reasons for voting decision: what makes con win is the un-refuted points about "the anatomy of animals is far different then ours. Plus, they function differently, who are we to know if the experiment were to work."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.