The Instigator
Dinara8
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Sultan94
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Should prisoners be used for medical experiments instead of animals?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Sultan94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,678 times Debate No: 29529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Dinara8

Con

I would say the prisoners that are murderers should be used in medical experiments. The ones that killed people for no reason.
Sultan94

Pro

I am not agree with you.
Firstly this "law" contradicts to rule of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Declaration says that all people have the same rights. It is mean that if you want to use prisoners for experiments you also have to use "usual" citizens.

Second argument that not all prisoners are guilty. There are many cases when innocent people were charged. For example it is one of the reason why many countries do not allow death penalty.
Debate Round No. 1
Dinara8

Con

I agree that humans have rights. Their life, currently, is forfeit if they're on death row. I don't agree with forcing anyone because that, no matter whether it's for humans or animals, is just wrong. However, they have a chance to help the human race better than animals and think about how many less we would have testing on humans instead of animals. It's just easier and costs less to use animals.
Sultan94

Pro

In first round you said that you are for using prisoners for experiment.

It is not efficient, because the next reason why many countries do not use death penalty is that cost of investigation before death penalty is too much. Cost of investigation before experiment on prisoners will be also expensive and it can make social unrest.
Using animals for experiments is cheaper. Scientist use animals for creating new drugs. But if prisoners used for drugs it will make cost of drugs too much.
Debate Round No. 2
Dinara8

Con

Yes, I'm for and have not change my mind. In the second round I said that using Human either animals is wrong but we have to do it and using prisoners are much better due to Human and animals have different organisms.
In addition, they respond differently to medications. If it was tested on human, scientists would get better results. Mostly death row inmates are convenient to using in experiments, because anyway they will be killed.
Sultan94

Pro

Our debate not about only prisoners who will by "killed". You said that any prisoners have to be used for experiments.
If our debate was only for using prisoners who sentenced to death maybe you will be right, but our debate is about using any kind of prisoners.
Do you know "Theory of evolution"? Human race developed from monkeys, we have the same organisms. Before companies begin to sell new drugs, in the last stage they check them on volunteers. So using prisoners for experiments is vainly.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Frost 4 years ago
Frost
Never in my life have I seen such a concentrated amount of grammar errors.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
Dinara8Sultan94Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The spelling & grammar could be improved on both sides. In addition, no evidence was provided for Con in laying out the opening argument. I agree with the other voters here that this resolution should have been restated as a declaratory statement in which the instigator took a Pro position. Taking Con was the wrong side of this debate for the instigator, and Con failed to provide the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Dinara8Sultan94Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for arguing the wrong side of the debate, forcing his opponent to declare "Pro" when he is opposed to the practice.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
Dinara8Sultan94Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a slightly higher prose.
Vote Placed by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
Dinara8Sultan94Tied
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: so the resolution is should prisoners be used instead of animals and con i would assume should be arguing against that but for some reason he argues pro. Beyond that no side really makes any convincing arguements but as con had BOP Pro wins.