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

This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research

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: 8/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 60493
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Sorry to hurt animals lovers and advocates out there. But...

This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research for the advancement and the well-being of humans.

For the purpose of this debate, these definitions are as stated:

Need: require (something) because it is essential or very important

Animals: a living organism other than a human being

Bio-medical Research: is the broad area of science that involves the investigation of the biological process and the causes of disease through careful experimentation, observation, laboratory work, analysis, and testing.

Advancement: development or improvement.

Well-Being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy

Humans: Mankind; the human race; humanity.

All definitions herein are as stated; other definition propose is contrary, and shall not be accepted.

I, YoungLawyer, taking the pro side in this heated case, shall defend for the research, the advancement of, and the well-being of humans through bio-medical research on animals, and others points that shall come up throughout the debate; while rebutting to statements that my opponent may use.

Round 1: Acceptance only, with a brief opening.

Round 2: Presenting points (max: 10) and defending them (my opponent shall make no rebuttals)

Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttal

Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttal

Round 5: Final Arguments/Rebuttals/Closing statements.



I'll go ahead and accept this debate. I hope to show that animal testing is not needed, or accurate.
Debate Round No. 1


I will like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to a critical debate. I understand my opponent is an strong advocate for animal rights. And I honor that. But this debate we're about to have is where "its human or animals."

Research needs advocate too.

Before we actually start debating, we'll both present our points as per the rules:

(1) Potential to finding cure or have find cure to Human Illness.

Let it be known that animal research holds great potential to finding cure for Human Illness. We share 95% of our gene with mouse, which holds great potential to helping find cure to some of humans illness. Many people will argue in favor of animals right, yet "smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals." Would you rather have had so many humans dying, or would you have allow for the research on animals, that led to this? We got to find a balance in reasoning, and where we stand when it comes to humans wellness and animals wellness. Through medical breakthrough in animal medical research: we find means to the Gila monster's (South American lizard). The Ebola virus that kills up to 90% of humans, has its roots traced by to monkey. While it is not airborne, any physical contact with one that has it, may lead to the death of another person, and if mistakenly one person have died from it, another person will die, and the issue keep going on. I can tell you today we're on the breakthrough of finding cure to this diseases, and if we should find cure to it, we'll combat this disease, and potentially save so many humans life. But hey, I guess animals advocates do not care about the safety and the wellness of humans, so they wouldn't allow for the research on monkeys. So instead, we let humans die.

(2) Human being life or well-being is of higher value than animals

Would you rather see a rat live or see a little girl live? Would you rather see a monkey live, or see millions of humans safe? Human being life or well-being is of higher value than animals. If doing animal research on a 100 animals for a little girl that has a serious case of sickness, and that animals hold the potential to her sickness, I will fully support it, because she deserves to live better. She's a human being. United States, and other western countries are well advance in medical research and healthcare due to many medical research, especially due to animal research. And while many people around the world are dying from diseases many people are being safe of here, we ought to be thankful for the energy, the resources, and the funding that have been going to it. What makes human of less value than animals?

(3) If not on Animals, certainly not on humans, than on what?

Animal research holds the key to advance medical research. Many people will argue that it is unethical to research on animals. Those same people who oppose the medical research and try to blockade the research, are the same one who will benefit from it. There are so many diseases in the world, and most of our answers ties back to animals. If we find it unethical to research on animals, we certainly going to find it unethical to research on humans. It's not like were researching on every single thousands of animals in the world, as a matter of fact, other animals combine less than one percent, while "Rats and mice account for about 95 percent of all animals used in research." Don't tell me Rats and Mice are very important or of higher value than us. "Animals are biologically similar to humans in many ways and they are vulnerable to over 200 of the same health problems", knowing this, its makes sense to research on them than to research on humans personally.

(4) Animals are here for humans to use.

One of the key issue that will come up in this debate is animal rights. I believe we were not endow with animals to preserve them. Animals were put on earth for the benefit of humans. Simply because you do not use animals, or think we should protect animals does not mean were going to allow advocates block our progress, and block something that will bring a lot of benefits to humans. Animals are being born, and the animal population keeps adding on. Researching and killing are different and even though many research may not be done in good standard, it brings great benefit to humans in the end; and even if this issue about animals dying, hunters kill animals everyday. It's part of life. Animal is our source of our food, and they are now our source of research and it has shown true benefit.

Once my opponent presents his points, we'll get into the true debate.


Animal testing is not needed in bio-medical research testing as it is not accurate, it is cruel to animals, and there are better alternatives.

Firstly, I'd like to mention that my opponent"s definition of animal, "a living organism other than a human being," would actually include plants, as they are living organisms. I"d like to thank my opponent for not using this loophole.

My first contention is that testing on animals is not accurate. According to the FDA, more than 92% of tests that pass when tested on animals, fail after being tested on humans. Of the remaining 8% of drugs that do pass, about half must be relabeled when unexpected side effects that did not occur in animals happen.

One specific example of the uselessness of animal testing is if the steroid methylprednisolone is effective in helping people with spinal cord injury. 62 different studies were performed on the following animals, with the following results:

Cats: Mostly Effective
Dogs: Mostly Effective
Rats: Mostly Ineffective
Mice: Always Ineffective
Monkeys: Effective
Sheep: Ineffective
Rabbits: Inconclusive

With all this varying evidence, scientists were unable to draw conclusions, and the effectiveness of the steroid on humans is still known. Testing on animals provided no help whatsoever.

Lastly, one example of animal testing leading to a decline in human health was the pass of the drug thalidomide in animal testing. Designed to help with morning sickness, the medicine ended up leading to more than 10,000 birth defects or fetal deaths.

Many of the most respected medical schools in the nation, including Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, no longer train medical students with experimentation on live animals or dissection. In fact, only just over 5% of medical schools continue to use animals.

This brings me to my second contention. Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.

As can be seen in the undercover video linked to below, animal testing, by the very nature of it, is cruel to animals. Animals are subjected to injuries and made ill to test drugs, and to be observed, and they are often killed.

Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and have emotions, and hurting and killing them is cruel. While some argue that human lives are more valuable than that of other animals, the basic problem with animal testing is that lives are ended on the off-chance that more lives might one day be improved, which rarely happens.

Finally, I"ll briefly discuss some of the more effective alternatives to animal testing.

Non-invasive clinical and epidemiological studies on humans, tissue and cell-based research, advanced computer simulations, and an artificial brain created from brain cells, called a "micro-brain."

I look forward to my opponent"s rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, I did not have to use loopholes, as I want us to debate fully. And even if I want to use loophole, the title will counter my loophole, because it clearly states "animals", unless you're assuming plants are animals?

For the most part of my opponent argument, he specially used the wording of the sources, instead of his own arguments. I want to know if it's him that I'm debating, or its the medical people whom site he got these paragraphs from.

Now, animal testing is needed in bio-medical research. Just because it's not accurate, does not mean its not a means to research on, or that is always going to be correctly. As far as I know, we'll always make mistakes in life, so you certainly cannot expect medical research to go all too well. Most animals advocates and my opponent always use the paragraph "its cruel to animals." Look, we do not live in a perfect world. People are dying from diseases, wars, and poverty. And if you think just because we're researching on animals is cruel, than you ought to look at the world from your rear view.

To come back to the point that animal testing is not accurate: yes it is not accurate, as most things are not in life. But if you want to let one mistake prevents you from pushing forward, than we as humans will never progress. If we have given up because of those failed test, we simply let our mistakes dictate us. Part of the reason why some of the test fails is because we're not yet advance in animal medical research, and its animal advocates that block the process. They advocate on animal testing behalf, and persuade governments to stop investing in that, because it is "cruel or not accurate." If we consistently invest in animal medical research, and if we learn from our failed mistakes, we'll than do better. Apparently, we cannot, because animal advocate block the way. Despite all that, animal testing is not always inaccurate, and I'll go into that as you read on.

Well, you're making specific reference to one failed case. And I'll certainly tell you animal testing is not useless. You have to understand the world around you, you have to understand that this world is not perfect. If we should all die, than all animals remains on earth, and if they should all remain on earth, would you than have feelings towards them. The matter of the fact is, you have feelings towards animals, because you're still living. If it wasn't for the people that have been researching and investing in medical research, God forbids, my mother or your mother could have gotten the polio. If it weren't for animal testing on monkeys, we probably wouldn't be here today due to polio paralyzing everyone. And because you want to show the bad side of animal testing, I will like to show you the good side you failed to show. After watching it, tell me what you think. Was it cruel and inhumane to research on these monkeys that saved millions of life, and saved the next generation of Americans who will come after their parents? Also tell me was the research "not accurate and cruel" to monkeys? Would you rather have had our little innocent girls and boys remain paralyze forever? Would you have wanted life as we know it come to an end for us? Researching on animals does not end life, but diseases that invades us do, and if we do not respond to them, we're doom. Many diseases have been gone from the United States due to Animals testing, including but not limited to: polio, smallpox, tetanus, rabies, including many others. We could have die from all that. Now tell me, is the sometimes cruel research done on animal, worthy of human beings lives?

After looking at what you presented, and knowing that some were effective, while others were not, would you as an animal advocate let medical research continue to get full understanding? See the thing with animals advocate is that once something don't work on an animal, they like to say "see" we told you, it does not work. "You're doing these inhumane acts on animals." You do not expect someone to be perfect at something in one or two tries. It takes time. And that's what animal advocates needs to do, give medical research time to advance research and get an full understanding. But they always want to give "the benefit of the doubt." Despite the fact that specific testing provide no help, does not mean all animals testing results provided no help, as my video above proves otherwise.

Again, my opponent pretty much used all the wording of the sources in defending his points. I'm not debating the medical people, so I do not know if I should respond to those statements he's making. If this is the case of present the con side of animal testing, I can pretty much find all the animal testing pro site and post them here as my debate. It wouldn't be us debating than, rather our sites statements arguing each other.

Nevertheless, I will continue to debate in my own words. While there was a mistake in the drug thalidomide, and the 10,000 birth defects or fetal deaths that led to this, we cannot let one mistake stop us from everything. It's life. If we let our mistakes stop us, we'll not learn them or try to improve on them. Now if researches have try to go back and try to fix the problem, animal advocates would have blocked them, because this one failed mistake led to this. This one mistake cannot underestimate the many achievements we have made in animal testing, according to Jack A bottling and Adrian R. Morrison "Animal Research is vital to medicine", we have find vaccines to: diphtheria, tetanus, rabies, whooping cough, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, and rubeca. They all relied on animal testing. Now imagine if we hadn't tested or done research on animals, than none of these vaccines would have existed. I cannot see how someone could be against something that has the potential to saving human life, all in the name of "animal right, abuse, and inhumane." Are we not being inhumane to ourselves and others when we block medical research that could safe ourselves and others, instead we let humans drop dead.

Despite the fact those Ivy league schools do not "train medical students with experimentation on live animals or dissection" does not mean we ought to stop animal testing. What is it trying to tell us, because they are Ivy league, mean we all shouldn't do it? I done animal dissection in school before. So this statement is pretty much out of the picture. Some questions can be answer only by animal research. As a human being, "to restrict research with animals would prevent discoveries that would benefit mankind." Or do you not want medical advancement that could benefit mankind...including yourself?

Okay, so we come to this "Animal testing is cruel and inhumane." "Animal testing, by the very nature of it, is cruel to animals." "Animals are subjected to injuries and made ill to test drugs and to be observed, and they are often killed." So what about the diseases? Aren't humans often killed by them? We as humans are like experimentation, on which disease test on, not by human, but by nature. So what you're proposing is for us not research on animals? Say we stop researching on animals that have actually brought benefits to humans, say we forget about all that, we want to save the animals. You simply give the diseases the opportunity to eradicate all of us! With animal testing, we'll stand in the way of these deadly diseases, we'll try to put stop to them, and sources and medical breakthrough have pointed that out. You cannot underestimate the power of research.

True animal have pain and emotions. So do humans. If a girl is dying and a animal is in pain, which one would you rather be attentive to? Which one would you rather try to save?



My opponent mentioned that I "used the wording of the sources." I invite the voters to look for themselves, as at no point did I use the wording of the sources I provided.

Firstly, my opponent agreed that animal testing is not accurate, as you can see in his fourth and fifth paragraphs. Pro argues that even though animal testing is not accurate, it should continue! My opponent made the point that if we continue animal testing, it will become more accurate, but this is not the case. Mice and other animals are not humans, and that won't change!

Pro was correct in stating that animal testing helped find the cure for polio, but this is not a good indication of future results. As I mentioned in the last round, more sophisticated and accurate testing methods that did not exist when polio was being researched are available to us, and because of this, there is no reason to test on animals.

"Researching on animals does not end life." This is an absurd statement. By the very nature of animal testing, it ends lives. The problem with animal testing is that the lives of animals are ended on the very slight chance that it will help humans. As my opponent has admitted that animal testing is not accurate, being cruel to animals cannot be justified. If testing on animals had a 100% chance, or even a 50% of helping humans, it might be justified, but this is not the case.

This could turn into a long and rather opinionated debate about the value of human life versus animal life, but it doesn't need to, because animals are essentially tortured, for a very slim chance that humans will be saved, and because animal testing is not the only option, and certainly not the best, this is not acceptable.

My opponent has fallen back on common arguments. " If a girl is dying and a animal is in pain, which one would you rather be attentive to?" This implies that animal testing is the only option to help the girl, when in fact, it probably won't help at all.

Pro's main case is that animal testing can help humans, and human lives are more important than those of animals, but, as I've said multiple times before, animal testing is not accurate and rarely helps humans, and because of this, animal cruelty cannot be justified.
Debate Round No. 3


Yes, I said animal testing is not accurate. No doubt. I said it's part of life for us to make mistake, you cannot expect perfection every single time, and that's what you want! Why is it not the case that as we continue animal testing, it will not become more accurate? Like Humans, animals do change. The more we become advance in medical research, we'll do things differently. If one thing does not work, you do not simply give up, but try again. But like I said, its animal advocate that block the progress, so how do you than expect them to "accurate."

Yes I'm correct in stating that animal testing helped find the cure for polio, just like all the other cure it has founded. Did you not read the other diseases it has combated, and did you not look at the video of the cure animal testing founded. If that video picture clearly points out all the benefits of animal testing, what makes you think "this is not a good indication of future results." Time and time again, it has proven results. Despite the "methods that are available to us" Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body.

Again, you're trying to strike perfection! "Not accurate"? 100% chance? 50% chance? We as humans are not yet well advance in animal testing, and the funding that should have gone towards that has been slashed due to animal advocates. Simply because it is not always accurate does not mean cruelty is not justified. Do you know half of the reason why researchers are sometimes cruel to animals? It can be justified in ensuring you and I well-being are okay. It can be jusitified if it holds the potential to finding cure for a very very deadly disease. Like I said, there are too many cruelty in the world, what makes this little thing a big deal? How can you ask for perfection, yet you're telling these researchers "no you cannot test on the animals." Does that make sense whatsoever? No we'll not always achieve perfection, but we have made great accomplished over the past decades, which of course you skimp over simply so you won't see it: skip to 13 and 23 in this video. The replacement of animal research you're also talking about is within this video. It comes to wonder me if you watch it? Watch the whole video.. You're simply trying to stop something that is helping you so much! When you go to the hospital, most of those vaccines, such as the polio vaccines and other vaccines, were some how developed through animal medical research. The first thing that comes to your mind isn't how this vaccine was made, only that it should be given to you so you can be safe.

Yes this could be a debate about the value of human life versus animal life, because animal medical research ties back to saving human life. Animal are tortured, yes, I know that. But it does not mean we should stop animal medical research completely, and let diseases spread across this nation, simply because we trying to stop "tortured." It's "slim chance" because we're not investing more and researching more to get better, because you and other animal advocates are blocking the progress. How can you expect someone or group of people to move forward, when you're putting barriers in their way? How can you expect me to do good, when you're blocking the resources and funding that should be given to me? Animals have brought immense progress, so they are needed, and is acceptable. Animals are the only thing on earth that share some of the same genes as humans.

Animals are the only option because some of them share our genes, and if it holds the potential to finding cure for that girl and other humans lives, it ought to be continue and they have helped. It would help if we did research, as polio and all other advances I have shown in the video and presented in my previous argument that I'm not going to list here.

My opponent has failed to realize that we as humans are not perfect. He has consistently ask for perfection, yet he and other animal advocates puts barrier in the way of such progress. We as humans will not move forward if we're not fighting for the same common cause. It is about the survival of the human race. Animal testing has helped humans, and I thought my opponent will knowing that considering that I have pointed out that polio strike the nation and paralyzed many people, including children, who would not have survive if it weren't for animal research. I have even pointed out that if it wasn't for the polio, maybe our parents wouldn't have make it, and we wouldn't be here. And I have pointed out through the video, through my sources, and through statements I have quoted that animal testing have find cured to many diseases, that are still killing people in poor countries! Human lives are more important, and if researching on them will bring immense benefit to the human race, I fully support it, despite the fact that we'll not always be "perfect!", because I know perfection isn't something that we can ever achieve in our lifetime, yet my opponent has constantly used that as a means to based his argument on. Animal testing and the cruelty that can sometimes come with it can be justified for it has brought benefits to humans and will continue to.

I look forward to my opponent reply.


Pro's case is that although animal testing is not accurate now, and it is cruel to animals, this is because humans are not perfect, and we should continue testing as in the future, we will be able to conduct more accurate tests.

First of all, my opponent has shown no evidence for this statement, and it is a total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals.

Secondly, there are humane alternatives to animal testing that will also continue to be more accurate in the future, and even at the current time, are more accurate than animal testing! I never mentioned anything about perfection in this debate, but my point was that if there are better alternatives, why care about animal testing? My opponent has not yet refuted any of the evidence I have provided for alternate methods, but I will bring up a few more anyway.

One of the most common ways to test is "in vitro" testing, which involves performing tests on human cell and tissue cultures. Not only is this more humane, it is also more accurate. In a test to see what was more accurate for detecting chemicals that would irritate human skin, EpiDerm, an "in vitro" test, identified 100% correctly, as opposed to animal testing, which had a 40% error rate.

Some more alternatives include computer based testing, stem cell testing, and microdosing, which involves administering very small amounts of a drug that only affect a human on a cellular level, by far the most accurate way to test!

My opponent has only mentioned past scenarios such as polio, and while polio was in fact researched with animal testing, it is very possible that there would have been the same result with humane testing!

Pro accused animal advocates of getting in the way of scientific advancements, but in fact, supporting animal testing is not helping research, it's hindering it! It's cruel, inaccurate, and simply not needed. The money that is going towards animal testing could be transferred to improving the already accurate humane testing, and humans and animals alike could have better lives!
Debate Round No. 4


How timetable. These will be my last words on here, as I will rarely have time to come debate online since College starts tomorrow. It was nice debating with you, and I look forward to debating with you, hopefully once I find time.

My opponent has failed to learn of history. We as human progress, as time change. We get better at things, the more we conduct on them. Take for examples computers. Computers used to take up a whole room, but as humans conduct more research and continue to work with computers, they were able to provide us with personal computers! The fancy cars we have today weren't the ones ford motor used to build. But as the centuries went on, and as he developed on building these cars, he was able to provide us with the new cars. Just like you, others thought this wasn't possible. They doubted. And what happens: they got proven wrong. I am exactly right by my statement that "we should continue testing as in the future, we will be able to conduct more accurate tests." I say this because you said were not conducting accurate test right now, so were some inventions that were first created, they weren't conducted accurate, but as we apply our knowledge and continue to test to see how things work, we were able to and will be able to conduct more accurate tests on animals.

Well obviously, I cannot show you "evidence of this statement", because I myself used the word "future," unless you're misapplying it to this debate. I cannot show you evidence, but yes it is a guess, it's a vision; and like many others who had guessed, they progressed, and that's the same we'll do with animal testing.

Actually you did mention perfection. You did not have to use the word itself, just your statement points all that out. " If testing on animals had a 100% chance, or even a 50% of helping humans, it might be justified, but this is not the case." You said if it had a 100% chance, before you'll consider it justify. This shows that you want to see perfection first before you accept it. 50% if also shooting for near perfection. And the term "not accurate" is seeking for accuracy, and if the testing wasn't accurate, you'll not see animal testing as justify or approve of it.

Why care about animal testing?

You claim I never refuted any of the evidence of the alternative methods, yet you never read what I said about "why care about animal testing." You actually haven't presented much alternative, it was round four before you actually explain it:

"more sophisticated and accurate testing methods that did not exist when polio was being researched are available to us, and because of this, there is no reason to test on animals."

"Non-invasive clinical and epidemiological studies on humans, tissue and cell-based research, advanced computer simulations, and an artificial brain created from brain cells, called a "micro-brain."

Is this what you mean by your evidence of the alternative method? It does not spell out much of what it is, only that you copy and paste the alternative prescribed by your source, yet you did not go into detail to talk about it or how it will work.

You consider it inhumane to research or otherwise test on animals. Yet you find it okay to research on humans? So its rather okay to research on humans, but not animals? Huh. Will humans not be prescribed to the same condition that these animals were being researched on? You advocating for researching on humans tissue and cell, by the very nature, that's exactly what we were doing with animals, because they share almost the same human system, yet instead of researching on the animals, you want us to research on the humans. Computer simulations is very wasteful. Not only will we be investing alot of money in getting these computers, but trying to prevent malfunctions and other issues that may arise with these computer. Which is a waste of energy, resources, and money. We'll also waste electricity in keeping these computer simulations running 24 hours. Computer simulation is not subject to the real world, so it cannot prove much of what will happen in the real world. Those computer simulation you're talking about will cost money and resources. Do you know how long it takes to program computer simulation? Do you know it requires skilled programmers and coders? You're trying to take the long and rather ineffective way in resolving diseases faster. By your alternative, we give diseases the means to move at a faster rate, rather try to counter it before it even moves. Artificial brain created from brain cells? Wow. The brain is created, and it is artificial. It is no longer attach to a human or a animal. So how can it be functioning? Explain how will it react to the drugs and other test? How can it express emotions on weather or not the drug is working in the human system? Again waste of resources, time, and money just trying to create these that will not bring much benefit.

I say this but I guess you did not read it or maybe you skimp over it:

Despite the "methods that are available to us" Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body.

I hope it answer you question that you claim I never refuted any of the evidence of the alternative methods, even though it was there all along.

My opponent is actually trying to downplay this debate. He keeps talking about the past scenarios of polio, yet I have presented many other cure for animal testing. The reason he does not want to look at those other benefits is because he'll pretty much shot his claims down that animal testing is "not accurate." My video source pointed many other benefits. Did you look at it? What about the one's I personally mention in this debate: Smallpox, polio, yellow fever, diphtheria, measles, cystic fibrosis, malaria or muscular dystrophy.

First my opponent tells me this about my argument: "my opponent has shown no evidence for this statement, and it is a total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals."

Than he tells me this about his argument: "it is very possible that there would have been the same result with humane testing!"

How is it that I'm guessing, or that this is a "total guess to assume that in the future, we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals," yet what you're saying isn't a guess? You trying to say I cannot determine the future, yet you can determine the past?

How sure are you that it would be the "same result." If so, than my argument is right that "we will have progressed enough to conduct more accurate tests on animals," since you can determine the past, I can also determine the future.

Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice. Supporting animal testing is helping research. It's growth, advancement of, and the well-being of humans. As a matter of fact, animal testing does help animals themselves! You're advocating for them, yet you do not support something that will also help them. These sources will pretty much kill your advocacy and argument. "Without important discoveries made possible with animal research, many of your dogs and cats, as well as birds, horses, livestock and wildlife, would die of diseases, viruses and injuries." "Pets, livestock, and animals in zoos live longer, more comfortable, and healthier lives as a result of animal research." "Doctors and veterinarians share almost 100 of the same medicines to heal humans and animals."

I rest my case. And look forward to your votes.


Throughout this debate, Pro has argued that animal testing is needed because it has helped humans in the past. After admitting that it is not accurate, he argued that it should continue despite the animal cruelty, which he also agreed with, as it will improve in the future, and might help more humans.

What my opponent was unable to refute is that there are currently more accurate tests that do not harm animals, and as these are very accurate currently, there's no need to continue harming animals on the off chance that humans will be helped. My opponent was quick to mention that animal testing helped with polio, but there is no evidence that humane testing could not also have accomplished this.

Pro failed to provide evidence for his statement that humane alternatives are more expensive than animal testing. As animal testing is not accurate, experiments have to be run multiple times, wasting money.

In paragraph seven of my opponent's last round, he mentions "[animals] share almost the same human system." This is just not true, as my earlier sources have backed up. In addition, it's just common sense that if animals were that similar to humans, we would see more than an 8% accuracy rate of medical tests on animals.

"Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body." I ask the same question. If this were the case, we would see a significantly greater success rate with tests on animals, than the current one we do see, and that of alternate methods. My opponent has relied on mentioning several diseases that were researched in the past with animal testing, but I felt no need to respond to each individually, as he didn't prove they couldn't be solved with humane testing.

"Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice." As I mentioned in the last round, testing on humans is not only accurate, but very safe, as only very small doses of medication are administered, so small in-fact, that they only affect humans on a cellular level. If this sort of testing were done on animals, it might be acceptable, but it is not done, as the lives of animals are not important in animal testing.

Finally, I'd just like mention the strong bias in Pro's sources. In the last round, for instance, you see that two of my opponent's three sources are from organizations that attempt to convince the public that animal testing is needed. The statements is Pro's last paragraph quoted from these sources are simply false.

As I have shown in this debate, animal testing is inhumane, not accurate, and not needed. Money should be spent on further developing the already accurate humane test methods, so that we can advance medicine for humans and animals. For these reasons, please vote con.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. Good luck at college!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by YoungLawyer 3 years ago
Oh hey Aerogant, I didn't see you there. I apologize.

Are you still talking about the debate we had. I think its already over.

Interestingly, I'm not debating this with you. It's really stupid of you to come talking every time. So are you saying because diseases occurs naturally, we should not worry or find solution to it? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from someone mouth. So are you saying because natural disasters happen, we should not respond or try to find means to prevent it from happening because it happens naturally??? That is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

But you know what, I try to be friendly. I'm sick of your mouth. You're seriously trying to piss me the f*** up. I think you need to go find something to do with your life man. This site and these debates are for the elites, the educated. Those who actually know about issues. Not some dumba** who thinks he knows everything.

Shut up and find a seat. I got nothing to say to you no more.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Yes, let's abuse animals and nature at the same time.

Perfect plan!

Let's ignore natural substances and cures for diseases that occur ever so naturally, but seem unnatural because of our own negligence towards learning the medicine world, rather than the one we made up ourselves!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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: Pro failed to address the "inaccuracy" point adequately--had he done so, he would have stood a better chance of success. But between the false dichotomies and historical sorta-useful-cases, there wasn't much meat to his case, and as such, he fails in his BoP. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.