The Instigator
XiaoFei98
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Testing on 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 2 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,843 times Debate No: 18967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

XiaoFei98

Con

So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned.

Whoever excepts my challenge: good luck.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

Hello and thanks for the debate! This should be interesting.

I will be arguing the position that testing on animals is acceptable in most cases. I will leave Round 2 for you to start the actual debate (I like Round 1 to be acceptance).

Again, thanks, and good luck as well!
Debate Round No. 1
XiaoFei98

Con

Ok. Thank you and good luck. I will copy and paste my introduction since there are many things that we could argue about.
So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned.

In our society, killing animals is just fine because we want to advance it science. There are other ways to advance in science without putting chemicals on innocent animals. The way this thing works is that they use the animal, put it through pain, and then kill it. What a life. Testing on animals can be avoided and instead you could test it on a dead corpse (I'm going to the extreme) or something else. We are killing innocent animals because we can, there are "too many", and we think it's okay. We should not only advance in science, but in love and compassion. We are killing innocent things everyday and yet, everyone feels it's ok. Do you think a homeowner should abuse his/her dog or cat? Do you believe they should be able to do that? So many people go off on the foreign countries because they eat dog or they eat cat or they eat etc., but as a hypocritical country, we do not see ourselves almost doing the same thing.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

Thank you, my opponent, for posting a persuasive argument!

Rebuttal
While many animals die because of animal testing each year, you cannot only look at the negatives of animal testing (though I realize that is your intention in a debate). Animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or even death due to their testing -- even if all of them did, you must prioritize your value on life. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Would you rather the testing animal die, or a man on his deathbed who needs a certain medicine which must be verified first?

You say there are other ways to advance in science (I assume you mean the advance of experimental medicine) than placing "chemicals on innocent animals." This is a faulty claim. These medicines must be verified that they actually work in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. You even claim we can "test it on a dead corpse" -- you completely miss the point of testing experimental medicine on animals. Testing on a corpse whose bodily functions have ceased to work is pointless. The medicine must be tested on an immune system that can respond in a realistic fashion.

You then go on to list reasons for "killing animals" -- again, the argument is on animal testing, which does not necessarily mean death -- "because we can, there are 'too many', and we think it's okay." You have again missed the point of animal testing. We do not test experimental medicine on animals BECAUSE we have the ability, population control, or morality. We do it to advance medicine which could potentially save lives. Animal medicine testing is not used for population control, and we do not do it merely because we have the ability or find it moral; we do it for a very practical reason.

Then you proceed on a tangent about animal abuse, which is irrelevant.

Conclusion
Several important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. You must understand before we go any further that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it helps us save lives.
Debate Round No. 2
XiaoFei98

Con

Do you think that those two sites are false? On the Google site, there are tons of pictures that shows the life animals have because we, as a selfish nation, want to improve our society. No, not all animals go through this pain, but the majority do. Animals should not be tested on.

On the New York Times page, the last sentence in my opinion is one of the most important. It shows that there are ways around killing animals to test products. Some of the things I use weren't tested and they work just fine.

On the peta.org site, it tells you how many animals die, the type, etc.

http://www.peta.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.google.com...

Now, I will begin my rebuttals.

Does it have to be between human and animal? Why can't we just choose both. There are ways around animals testing and in some ways, the other ways are more accurate since animal and human cells don't react the same all the time. I have prioritized my values on life and I want to make it so that both are giving a fair chance at life. I would rather have both survive than one die and then perhaps the man die as well because the medicine didn't work.

I went to the extreme with a dead corpse and almost being sarcastic with that. I was trying to get the point across that there are other ways to test medication. There should also be fellow animals rights. No animals has the right to be abused and be killed for the sake of medicine that might not even work. Also, since there's another way out, that even makes the animal abuse stand out even more.

We can save lives in different fashions, like I've been talking about the whole time. We wouldn't do that on a human, would we? No because humans have rights. We can take away animals' rights and they get no say. We HAVE the control to do whatever we want and we are using it against them. We wouldn't do it to humans because they would fight back, they would try to prevent it. Animals are helpless and cannot fend for themselves as well as we can.

Animals are abused in the labs. That's where I got animals abuse. Animals are tested on and are misused and have horrible lives. A life filled with poking, jabbing, etc.

Does this look humane? Is this what we need to do to animals when there are other ways to test?

How about this one?:
Or this one:
Or this one:

All of these things takes place in the lab. This is immoral and inhumane and should be stopped. Don't you agree?
There is too much evidence to how it more wrong than right and millions of animals die because of us.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

I thank my opponent for her quickness, and I apologize for my slow response.

Rebuttal 1
I am by no means asserting that all animal testing is moral and just. If you take a look at Round 1, I stated that I will be arguing the position that animal testing is "acceptable in most cases." I understand that by posting these YouTube videos you have a degree of passion about this topic, and that is fine. However, you must understand that you are using the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy, and it is near impossible to argue logic against emotion (however, since we are arguing on a Debate site, I believe most, if not all of the debaters, will not take emotion into consideration when voting).

Google Images is unreliable. Not only are most images on the Internet touched up and edited in some way,[1] but this search is inherently biased. The term "animal testing" is often used in a negative way.[2] Typing in a negatively-connoted term such as animal testing and finding images of animals locked in cages about to get brutally tortured is just as surprising as typing in the word "death" and getting images of the Grim Reaper.[3] Just by using the term "animal testing" your search is automatically viewed from a negative perspective.

As for the New York Times site, you said the last quote is the most important. It says, "over time, the use of animals for testing could be greatly reduced and possibly eliminated." The use of the word 'could' in this sentence is very important. In this context, the word 'could' means "expressing possibility."[4] This article is only expressing possibility of reducing animal testing in the future, which is completely just. I am not arguing that animal testing is a good way, only that it is the best way. If a new process of medical experimentation is created, animal testing would be an archaic method of experimentation; however, for now, it is the only way of testing.

As for peta.org, this source is automatically biased, however, you do not state any specific claim from this site that I can rebut.

Rebuttal 2
Does it have to be between human and animal? Yes, in this argument, it does, actually. Because medications that are given to the public must first be tested on animals so medical companies are aware of the problems in the medicine. If they are not, this may result in serious injury to a patient taking the medicine or even death. Some of the greatest medical advances of the last few centuries can be attributed to the testing of medicine on animals before being released to the public.[2]

My opponent states that "there are other ways to test medication," yet she has not given any examples. She has agreed that the "dead corpse" was extreme and almost "sarcastic" so this option is recognized as invalid by both sides. The only way of testing medication on a complex and conscious living being is a member of the animal kingdom; however, we must choose between humans and animals at this point. As we could both probably agree that we testing on humans is more immoral than testing on animals, we are left with one option: to test medication on animals. Here is my argument in the form of a syllogism:

1. Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives
2. Medication must be tested before release
3. The only available test subjects are live animals
4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals
5. Medication must be tested on animals

My opponent agrees that humans have rights. However, she assumes that we have other ways of testing medications (I assume this is what you mean by "we can save lives in different fashions"). This is incorrect. There is no way of knowing how a system as complex as a living being will react unless we test it. You may find some of my statements horrifying or immoral (i.e. "Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives") but you cannot deny that they are correct -- if you are a talented doctor and find a way around testing animals, so be it, but until then, this is the only option.

Animal abuse is irrelevant. We are discussing animal testing; that is, the morality of the testing of medication on animals before its use in hospitals. The way scientists treat animals before or after medication is irrelevant, we are discussing the implications and necessity of animal testing.

Sources
1. Josephson, Sheree. Visualizing the Web: Evaluating Online Design from a Visual Communication Perspective. p. 54.
2. Thomassen, Marte, et al. "Animal Testing in Medical Research." goo.gl/MrmOn p. 4.
3. Google, Inc. "Google Images." http://goo.gl...
4. Dictionary.com. "Could." http://goo.gl...
5.
Debate Round No. 3
XiaoFei98

Con

I am glad you didn't forfeit. I still have many things to say. I just have a lot of time on my hands.

Now to start my rebuttals.

You said, "As for the New York Times site, you said the last quote is the most important. It says, "over time, the use of animals for testing could be greatly reduced and possibly eliminated." The use of the word 'could' in this sentence is very important. In this context, the word 'could' means "expressing possibility."[4]". I'm wondering if you read the NY Times article. Here's what it says in the first few sentences: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products." Thus, I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals.

"Google Images is unreliable. Not only are most images on the Internet touched up and edited in some way". Well, yes, they can be touched up, but it still has the same picture. Some of them must be true because some pictures were as gruesome as the ones in the videos.

I would love to pick your brain about this. You said, "[You] [would] be arguing the position that animal testing is "acceptable in most cases."" How can mistreating an animal be acceptable? You wonder where I get animals abuse from, here's the answer. Animals in those labs are being abused while their being tested on. They are being killed, force fed things, forced to breath in toxic gases, etc. If we did that to a human, it would be called abuse. They are being abused. If you search abuse on dictionary.reference.com it says that abuse is "to use wrongly or improperly" or to "treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way". Animals were not put on this Earth to be slaves to us and to die for us. This is where I get animals abuse from. When does abusing and animals become acceptable?

"1. Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives"- I believe that is false, but that's just my opinion so we won't go into that.
"2. Medication must be tested before release"- True
"3. The only available test subjects are live animals"- False. There are donors who will donate some of their cells to test on, pushing animals aside.
"4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals"- False. If it's voluntary like the NY Times article said, it's completely okay. No one's really getting hurt. People can heal quick.
"5. Medication must be tested on animals"- False again for the same reason as reason #4.

The NY Times article disproves almost all your points. Read it over if you need to. http://www.nytimes.com...

Notice this was in 2007. We should have eliminated animals completely by now.

Look forward to your last response. This was a good debate. Good luck and nice debating with you. Vote Con.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

I thank my opponent for her quick response again.

Rebuttal 1
Before I start, I would like to say that it is YOUR duty to debate me within the text limits you are given; redirecting me to a New York Times article and expecting me to argue with it is beyond the boundaries of this debate. In all honesty, I do not need to read the New York Times article (however, I did), I only need to read what you referenced or cited. In the last argument, you cited the last sentence, so I refuted the last sentence. You say: "I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals." No, you actually did not. You provided a link to an article and specified the text which supported your claim. I read the text you cited and then proceeded to rebut in my response.

However, you now bring up another claim which you have deemed significant: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products." Well, that's great. It's reasurring to know that humans have donated some of their cells. However, this only refutes animal testing in the future; while it may seem as if this new way of testing works now, we must still stick to testing on animals because we know this works. If we begin to jump at every opportunity to get around testing animals, we will begin cutting corners.

Rebuttal 2
You completely missed my main point about Google Images. Editing is not the same picture; in fact, the word 'editing' basically means altering a primary source or document, such as a picture. You are still using the Appeal to Emotion -- while these caged animals (most are actually mice) may seem very disheartening and immoral, you must remember that not only do you automatically retrieve negative portrayal of animal testing because of the negative connotation associated with the term (which you did not refute), these caged animals are being tested with medication ranging from curing headaches to saving lives. If you really believe that testing on mice is not worth saving a patient's life, then maybe the Appeal to Emotion just doesn't work.

Rebuttal 3
You ask, "How can mistreating an animal be acceptable?" I have answered this several times. It is acceptable because animal testing directly leads to medications being made safer, and thus more effectiveness in its use to cure human biological needs. This is why "mistreating" an animal can be acceptable. Calling me heartless will not help; I can similarly call you heartless for not wanting to help your fellow man. The Appeal to Emotion does not work when trying to argue logic. The definition of abuse is irrelevant, because we are discussing testing on animals, which does not necessarily imply abuse -- we are discussing the implications of testing medication on animals before its release to the public. We are not discussing whether a kid should be able to kill a stray cat for no reason.

Let me now defend my syllogism.

1. Human lives are more valuable than animal lives -- I don't understand how you believe this is false. They cannot just be "equal," when faced with a decision that forces you to choose one over the other. Either we test on animals (which, of course, is implying that they always face death, which is not the case) and we better our medication so that they do not cause vicious side effects, or we choose not to test on animals, which could mean medication is released to the public with little or no experimentation.

2. Medication must be tested before release -- It seems we both agree this is true. However, you resort to advocating new ways (and thus, not necessarily reliable) and I advocate the use of a process which has shown to be an accurate representation of how a medication will affect a living being.

3. The only available test subjects are live animals -- You actually disproved this point, congratulations. There are other ways, albeit risky and perhaps unreliable, processes to test medication. Like I said, it is better to stick with an experienced process that you can be absolutely satisfactory with than rely on new methods at the risk of several negative effects. Take into consideration, for example, the expression "better be safe than sorry."

4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals -- You don't seem to understand, and I truly don't mean to be condescending at all. This may be "voluntary," but the reliability, accessibility, etc., are all factors in this new process you have used to support your argument. The reason we test on mice and other animals is because they are so biologically similar to humans -- if a human has the ability to heal from an experimental medication, a biologically similar creature will as well; the same goes for the inability to heal.

5. Medication must be tested on animals -- I have proved my point.

For future reference, I am not debating Mr. Barnaby Feder of The New York Times. I am debating you. Please, if you would like to illustrate a point from a reference, which is completely fine, make a point and cite it with the article so that I know exactly what to refute.

Thanks for the debate, it has been a pleasure. Good luck as well.


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by XiaoFei98 3 years ago
XiaoFei98
I would just like to say that for your points about testing on human cells, they did test them so they weren't cutting any corners. Also some animals cells don't react the same as humans' so they aren't always accurate.
Posted by XiaoFei98 3 years ago
XiaoFei98
No problem. :) This is a fun, less stressful debate. Easier, I guess, for me to talk about.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Sorry for that stray "5"; I was expecting to use another source.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Good luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beachgirly 2 years ago
Beachgirly
XiaoFei98Nur-Ab-SalTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Well I would love for Con to win this debate because, I am against animal testing as well, but sadly Pro made more convincing proclamations/debate
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
XiaoFei98Nur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did provide examples of how testing on animals both are not always inhumane and can serve a valuable purpose. Con's argument was a scare-you-into-agreement argument with until the very last round, by then the Pro had already made a better argument. Con did use google images which is a decent source to me so Con got sources. good debate though