The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Should we ban animal 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 62887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Animal testing should be ban because animals have the rights not to be harm


Animal testing is needed in many of our most important industries, as well as for advancements in the scientific community. If we refused to do animal testing, what would we test on? Humans? I'm sorry, but I cannot value human life the same as animal life, nor can many other people.

Point 1: Many industries need animals to be tested on, as they don't wish to risk human life.

When we look at the argument that animal testing is immoral, we need to look at what we should test. If we don't test on animals, we will have to test on humans during the preliminary stages, which can result in disastrous results. Instead, if we do what is normally done, and just test on animals during the beginning stages, see how it affects them, and then attempt it on humans. If we just test on humans during the preliminary stages, these people could be seriously injured.

An example of this could be the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which blacks were infected syphilis, and left it to be untreated. This is highly unethical, and these tests could have been done on animals instead of humans.

Point 2: Testing is needed in many profitable industries.

If we do not test on animals, we can expect to see a substantial profit loss for many important, and profitable businesses located in the West. All those pretty cosmetics' that the girls buy would sky rocket in price. If they had to retest a make-up several thousand times, it will cost a lot more money. Not to mention that they'd have to test on humans!

Profits of Cosmetics Industry in General:

Point 3: Animal testing has contributed to medical, and scientific studies.

Animal testing has been used to cure many diseases in the past. In fact, the California Biomedical Research Association states that in the past ONE THOUSAND YEARS, that almost all breakthroughs involved animal testing. If we didn't use animal testing in the past, where would we be? Where would we be going?

I conclude with this point: It is immoral, and illogical, to support the belief that animals shouldn't be tested on. We'd need to test on humans, a profitable industry would lose money, and cut jobs. And to top it off, we may not have as many medical advancements in the future, as we did in the past.

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1


baryona forfeited this round.


holybejebus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


baryona forfeited this round.


holybejebus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tanawsomeguy55 2 years ago
Im on con side because think about this what or who will we test on to test new medicines and animal testing mean always a bad thing what about animal studies where they change the enviroment slightly to see what is going on those animals are well fed and taken care of you think the word animal testing means a evil scientist injecting a rat with a syrum that makes it abliterate this kind of debates de faces the good reputation sicence has built up the last 100 years as well as if we start human testing agian you would now be protesting that not all scientist are the hulk who will test on himself
Posted by holybejebus 2 years ago
Answer to stef16:

Animals /CAN/ die from penicillin, as I'm sure you're referring to the guienea pig and hamster cases. However, large doses of any medicine can kill somebody. However, many animals do have the same functions we have in our body, and we can easily adjust the drugs to suit the animal.

If we didn't use animals in the past, most of our medical advancements wouldn't have been created. Therefore, animals ARE a reliable source, considering we've used them in the past successfully.
Posted by stef16 2 years ago
Question for the con:

If we had used animals to test penicillin, we would never have used it as animals can die from it, so surely animals are not as reliable sources as humans?
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
Question for the Pro.

If we ban testing on animals, are you willing to let scientist test on you?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leoghakj 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Instigator barely participated. Instigator also used incorrect grammar, and forgot a period.