This House Would Ban Animal Testing
Debate Rounds (3)
My first point is that animals have a right not to be harmed. 100 million vertebraes are experimented on around the world each year and unfortunately, not all of them have been treated well. You are probably familiar with the Silver Springs monkeys Case. These were 17 wild-born macaque monkeys from the Philippines who were kept in the Institue of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. From 1981 to 1991, these monkeys had been cut afferent ganglia that supplied sensation to the brain from their arms, then used arm slings to restrain the good arm to train them to use the limbs they could not even feel. The monkeys lived in incredibly filthy conditions for TEN YEARS before exposed to the public.
My second point is that animals are very different from humans and therefore make poor test subjects. It was reported by the Food and Drug Administration that 92% of the drugs and medicine that pass in animal tests, fail in humans. For example, during the 1960s, thalidomide was extensively tested on numerous animals including 11 breeds of rabbits, 15 strains of mice, 8 species of primates, various breeds of cats, dogs and ferrets only to name a few. Altogether, hundreds if not thousands of animals were tested using thalidomide. Thalidomide was a medicine prescribed to pregnant women to reduce morning sickness. Unfortunately, it resulted in huge deformation of the babies' limbs, brain, eyes and other facial features as well as causing blindness, the inability to walk or talk etc. Over 10,000 babies worldwide were effected and few survived. This 'extensive' animal testing which was initially a huge project for scientists had failed to predict any hazards or side effects from thalidomide. I think that because evolution and genetics show that animals and humans differ in profoundly different ways, animal models will never be able to recapitulate what happens in the human condition. I know that some animals for example rats, have a few similarities with the human anatomy, however....we are not all just oversized 70kg rats!
My third point is that due to modern technology and research, there are actually many alternatives to animal testing. Here I only name a few.
-The In Vitro Testing: Scientists and engineers at the Harvard Wyss Institute have invented "organs-on-a-chip" including "lung-on-a-chip" and "gut-on-a-chip". These tIny devices contain human cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics human organs. These chips can be used instead of animals for disease research, drug testing and toxicity testing.
-The In Silico Testing: This is a wide range of sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. Basically, these models can accurately predict how a drug will react in the human body. Referring back to the thalidomide disaster, if the 'In Silico' testing had been used, we could have discovered immediately the dangers of the drug and would have saved so many lives.
In the USA, 97% of medical schools and colleges have already completely replaced the use of animal testing with better alternatives like the ones mentioned. These alternatives are much more effective than animal testing and will reduce the deaths of both animals and humans.
Thank you for reading and I beg you to oppose.
(1st round: main points
2nd round: rebuttal
3rd round: conclusions)
In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are "just animals" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be "improving the lives of humans" like you so emphasised in your point.
Now back to my perspective. Animals are not "just animals" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also "improve the lives of humans".
Thank you and I beg you to oppose.
Declan0077 forfeited this round.
Thank you for reading.
Sources used throughout debate:
Declan0077 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited
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.