The Instigator
PeacefulChaos
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Cobo
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Wierdman's Tourney- 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 4 votes the winner is...
PeacefulChaos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,407 times Debate No: 20039
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (4)

 

PeacefulChaos

Con

I thank Cobo in advance for accepting this debate.

BOP-

I will be against animal testing.

My opponent will be for animal testing.

Definitions-

Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs [1].

Rules-

1. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, wordplay, and/or loopholes.

With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. And thanks to wierdman, who started this tourney.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cobo

Pro

I agree with this definition, accept this debate and wish my opponent luck in future rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
PeacefulChaos

Con


Before beginning, I would like to thank Cobo again for accepting my challenge.



1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal’s part.



Animals, when subjected to testing, are dissected, gassed, burned, blinded, forced in cages, and executed. Approximately 100 million animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, birds, rats, chimpanzees, monkeys, and a plethora of other living organisms are killed every year [2]. These inexcusable acts are said to be for the “greater good”, but what is the “greater good”? We use animal testing for products such as toothpaste. Is my toothpaste part of the “greater good”? Perhaps my dish soap is part of it. Either way, I am sickened to know that 200,000 animals or so have been killed so I can brush my teeth in safety [3]. It is even more sickening to realize that many of these deaths were unneeded, since it would have been possible for companies such as REACH to use other available alternatives to animal testing. (These alternatives will be expanded upon in future arguments.) However, scientists crossed the line with animal testing when they began testing weapons on animals [4]. It is estimated that in 2007 over 18,000 animals were used in weapons research. Animals subjected to this form of testing are poisoned by chemical warfare agents, subjected to blast injuries, and deliberately wounded and killed by bacterial toxins. This is undeniably inhumane and cruel, and it should be stopped immediately.



2. Animal testing is not reliable.



While certain animals may have similar attributes to the human body, they still react differently to vaccines, drugs, medications, and experiments. Thus, the results of animal testing can be unpredictable and have, in some cases, endangered human lives.



A) Clioquinol, a drug produced to provide safe relief from diarrhea, had a severe negative impact upon many humans. Despite being “safety tested” in animals, this drug caused approximately 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis in Japan alone and thousands of deaths worldwide.



B) Opren was a drug for arthritis; however, it was withdrawn in 1982 after 62 deaths and 3,500 serious side affects including damage to the eyes, skin, liver, and kidneys. This too was supposedly, “safety tested” in animals.



C) Thalidomide is one of the most famous examples of the dangers of animal testing. Its original purpose was to be a sedative for pregnant women. Despite the manufacturer’s claims that it was completely safe for the unborn child, this sedative caused tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Moreover, it caused permanent nerve damage in adults not detected during animal testing.



Additional cases of the dangers of animal testing include Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin. Furthermore, FDA itself estimated in 2006 that 92% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human clinical trials [2]. It is evident that animal testing is unreliable and causes millions of deaths, both in animals and humans.



3. There are alternatives to animal testing [5].



(Nearly everything in this argument can be found within the given link, [5].) Although animal testing is crude and ineffective, there are many other ways to get the same, if not better, results without killing so many animals. Not to mention these alternatives are cheaper. The following is a quote from the article:



Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994.(3)



From this paragraph, we can already tell that epidemiological studies have benefited us by showing the relations between smoking and cancer. Animal testing, on the other hand, did no such thing, and actually denied that there was a link between smoking and cancer. Furthermore, the tobacco company executives would have to kill many animals to reach this false conclusion, whereas the epidemiological studies did not have to kill any animals, and it reached the correct conclusion.



Moreover, population studies have revealed ways to prevent AIDS and other infectious diseases, whereas animal studies have barely made a dent in this ongoing problem. In fact, approximately 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that were passed in animal testing were denied in human clinical trials, according to NIH.



Then we have one of the best alternatives to animal testing. Human volunteers can donate their bodies and/or organs to medical research or other forms of testing. Alternatively, human volunteers can donate tissue or even cells to be subjected to testing. While the former may be rare, the latter is likely to happen very frequently, since it requires little to no loss on the donator’s part. In fact, it is already happening, and it is through these studies that we have been able to develop a 3-D model of breast cancer so investigators can test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops throughout the human body.



I believe this should be a sufficient amount of examples for now, and I will include additional examples and/or arguments if necessary in future rounds.



Conclusion-



Consider the benefits of animal testing thus far. We have toothpaste, dish soap, and other household items. Now consider the harms of animal testing thus far. We have Clioquinol, Opren, Thalidomide, Vioxx, Isoprenaline, and Rezulin, all of which caused many painful side affects and death to humans. In addition to this, we have approximately 100 million animal deaths as a result of animal testing from medical research. Furthermore, it is more expensive compared to non-animal tests, and is less efficient. From these results, we can conclude that animal testing is expensive, unreliable, deadly, and inhumane; therefore, humans should no longer utilize this form of testing.



With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent and wish him luck.



[2] http://news.change.org...



[3] http://www.peta.org...



[4] http://www.animalaid.org.uk...



[5] http://www.peta.org...


Cobo

Pro

I would like to thank peaceful chaos for creating this wonderful resolution.

Observation-The pros and con's of animal testing
Today we are debating about the general pros and con's of animal testing, not whether animal testing is immoral and not whether animal testing needed to be stopped.

Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals.

Ct.1-Animal Testing has saved countless Human Lives and is saving more

Sub-point A-Polio and animal testing
Polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th Century in the United States.
In 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis.
Before Jonas Salk began testing a polio vaccine in 1952, an average of between 13,000 and 20,000 polio cases of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported yearly just in the United states from 1916 onward. It is estimated that 23,000,000 people have died from polio worldwide.

"While perfecting his vaccine against polio, Albert Sabin conducted tests on many animals. The sacrifice of these animals has enabled entire generations of humans to grow up without fear of the crippling effects of polio. Animal rights advocates who see animal experimentation as cruel and wasteful overlook the fact that it has been instrumental in developing medicines that have saved countless human lives."[1]

Animal testing is needed, Without it many human lives could not be saved.
Much understanding of common household diseases and afflictions were solved or advance through animal testing.
These are
diphtheria
cholera
polio
rabies
syphilus
measles
rubella
hepatitis
Diabetes,
Asthama

Ct.2-Animal Testing has saved countless Animal Lives and is saving more

Sub-point A-Saving Animal Lives

"Heart worm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself."[2]

You see animal testing saves animal lives too. Whenever someone usually think of animal testing they are think that the animal gets nothing out of it, but here it shows that many are benefited.

The Con Case

1.Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal

First of all the con gives his moral argument based off of what he himself believes, He never actually gives a poll or any feedback from the countless people animal testing has saved.
Secondly he does not give any source that says the animals are experiencing suffering or being tortured.

There are also laws on animal testing and what can go on inside the laboratories

"Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing."[2]

2.Animal Testing is not reliable

A)Clioquinol
Clioquinol was not the cause of SMON(the disease that causes blindness/paralysis)
This is straight from the US National Library on medicine

"Between about 1955 and 1970, some 100,000 Japanese were diagnosed as having sub acute myelooptic neuropathy (SMON), a new disease characterized by abdominal and neurological manifestations. Circumstantial evidence obtained in 1969-70 suggested that SMON might have been caused by clioquinol (CQL), a gastrointestinal disinfectant, and led to the suspension of further sales of CQL in Japan. However, several inconsistencies for the CQL theory of SMON have now emerged; first, CQL had been widely used in Japan for nearly 20 years before SMON occurred. Secondly, the SMON epidemic began to subside several months before CQL sales were suspended. Thirdly, a large proportion of SMON patients--probably about one-third and possibly more--had not taken CQL within six months of the onset of the disease ; of the remaining two-thirds or so, many had taken CQL as part of the treatment of the first symptoms of SMON itself. Fourthly, there was no dose-response relationship. Finally, SMON rarely, if ever, occurred outside Japan."[3]

B)Opren
Because the company making opren did not follow the proper standards in testing the drug(Known as Oraflex in the US)
they were immediately sued by multiple parties(victims, FDA, and more)[4]
This leads back to my animal testing laws arguments and the statement about the "unethical animal testing"

C)Thalidomide
This drug is actually being used again in the united states
The FDA re-approved it then later endorsed it in a positive manner

3.There are alternatives to animal testing

Let's look at this debate today, As I said in my first observation this debate is not about seeing whether animal testing should be stopped or looking at the alternative, It's just debating the pros and con's of animal testing. Nothing else.
I also fail to see what this argument accomplishes, because if these alternatives are so great, why aren't we using them?

The main reason we use animal tests is because.
1.We want to save humans
2.Any organisms body is so complex that just using a piece of it or a dead one is not sufficient enough
Example Experiment-Try to give a dead person a cold, Doesn't work so well does it?
3.Since we have to use live organisms to get the best results and killing human each experiments would just set us back ward we have to use animals

Conclusion

What this debate comes down to is the value of a human over a animal.
Would you kill 30 fruit flies to save one human?Would you experiment on 1000 specially bred lab rats in order to save 2,000 children?
Today we have to weigh the facts and the sides. Since there is no formal resolution and both sides have an equal burden of proof the only thing you can truly weigh is the facts

Con facts-Why Animal testing is bad
218,000 animals killed
33,500 humans affected
62 human deaths
Faulty medicine

Pro facts-Why animal testing is good
Millions of animals saved
At Least 23,000,000 human's saved
Vaccines that have saved countless people

Sources

I turn the round over to Peacefulchaos and wish him the best of luck.

[1]-http://www.post-gazette.com...

[2]-http://www.buzzle.com...

[3]-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[4]-http://www.time.com...

[5]-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
PeacefulChaos

Con


Before beginning, I would like to ask Cobo to treat this as a rebuttal round, as will I. We will skip the fourth round. I am asking this so that we can finish the debate today and not become disqualified. New sources for rebuttals will be acceptable this round, but please no new arguments, as that would mean I would not have a chance to respond to them. Also, I will be posting my sources in the comments section to save room. My opponent can do this as well if he wishes.



My apologies for creating such a vague resolution: I created the first round hastily without pausing to think about the wording of it. Anyways, since animal testing is immoral, then I would say that counts as a “con”. Because I created such a vague resolution, I guess I will be trying to prove there are more cons to animal testing, making it unacceptable. On the other hand, my opponent will have to prove there are more pros, making animal testing acceptable. Thus, without further ado, let us get back into the arguments.


Pro’s Case-



Ct.1-Animal Testing has saved countless Human Lives and is saving more



While my opponent has shown how animal testing has saved lives, he has failed to provide evidence that animal testing is still saving lives. Animal testing may have once been useful to us; however, it is time that we move on to better alternatives, because animal testing is evidently unreliable and deadly.



My opponent also provides the polio disease as an example to show how animal testing played an important role in curing it. However, he neglects to tell you that animal testing simply delayed the vaccine to this disease [6]. Sure, animal testing created a “vaccine”, but because it was manufactured from monkey tissue, this so-called “cure” resulted in six human deaths and twelve cases of paralysis. Thus, this was abandoned, and they attempted to create a new vaccine through nasal treatment, but that just caused permanent olfactory damage to the children tested. (At the time, scientists did not realize that monkeys contract polio nasally whereas humans contract it orally.) Luckily, Dr. Albert Sabin studied human autopsies to disprove the nasal theory. Then, he announced himself that, “... prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.Afterward, a vaccine for polio was able to be made.



Once again, animal testing has failed and endangered human lives. As for the list you provided, some of those diseases do not yet have a cure and simply have a treatment. In other cases, the cost was simply too high for the pay off. For example, lab animal tests threw diabetes research off track for decades, all the while killing thousands of animals [7].



Ct.2-Animal Testing has saved countless Animal Lives and is saving more



While this may be one of the pros to animal testing, this does not make it acceptable. It would be similar to saying that it is acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit the rich ones. Furthermore, scientists are still doing the same thing: they are inflicting suffering to those who are at their mercy (the animals). Lastly, this pro to animal testing is relatively small compared to the cons, which will be summed up in the conclusion.



Rebuilding-



1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal’s part.



My opponent claims my argument is what I believe; however, I gave sources to back my arguments up, and much of what I said was facts and statistics. In addition, I did not give a poll or statistic for the people animal testing has saved because this argument has to do with animals, not humans. Otherwise, my argument would have been, “Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the human’s part”.



Then my opponent states I did not provide any sources showing that animals are experiencing suffering or being tortured. Contrary to his claim, I did provide a source showing how animals are poisoned by chemical warfare agents, subjected to blast injuries, and deliberately wounded and killed by bacterial toxins [4]. Another source I provided shows how REACH tortures and kills approximately 200,000 animals [3].



However, since my opponent does not find these sufficient, then please look at these two links: [8] and [9]. In both, it displays the cruelty that goes on in laboratories. For example, animals are surgically mutilated, genetically modified, deliberately tormented, starved, poisoned, have chemicals rubbed into their eyes, scalded, maimed, shot, and blown up. In link [8], you can see some pictures to give you a little idea of what goes on in laboratories.



Afterward, my opponent claims there are laws protecting animals in laboratories; however, not only are these laws not sufficient for animal protection, but many scientists break these laws. The AWA only requires that animals have a minimum sized cage and clean food and water [10]. There are little to no limits as to what scientists can do to the animals. They can shoot them in the head or chop them up, but as long as they have a cage, food, and water then everything is okay. Moreover, this law does not cover animals such as birds, rats, mice, livestock, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates.



It is evident that these laws are ineffective and do not give protection to animals.



2. Animal testing is not reliable.



Before beginning, I would like to point out that my opponent simply refuted my three examples. This does not disprove the fact that 92% of the drugs that passed animal testing fail in human clinical trials [2]. In my third argument, I also showed how animal testing was unreliable, so I suppose that is one purpose of my third argument. Anyways, let us get back to the examples.



A) In my opponent’s source, it says, “CQL could, however, have been involved in the causation of SMON as an optional enhancer of some other necessary cause; the history of post-war environmental pollution in Japan is compatible with this hypothesis.” Thus, it is possible that it was involved in the cause of SMON. Even if Clioquinol did not cause SMON, this is simply one out of many examples of how animal testing is unreliable.



B) Nevertheless, Opren was a result of animal testing. It still killed 62 people and caused 3,500 deaths. Simply because they broke a law (which happens numerous times), that barely protects animals in the first place does not change the fact that animal testing was the cause of Opren.



C) Once again, this does not change the fact that Thalidomide caused tens of thousands of deaths worldwide and caused permanent nerve damage in adults.



3. There are alternatives to animal testing [5].



I realize that the resolution was badly worded, so this argument is not entirely useful. However, it does have some value. When comparing other forms of testing to animal testing, we find that animal testing is extremely ineffective, crude, and costly. I can also use this argument as examples of the alternatives I mentioned when refuting your first argument. Other than these two points, I admit this argument has no value to me.



Animals Life vs. Human Life-



Your analogies should be a bit more like this, “Would you kill 200,000 animals for your toothpaste?” Alternatively, “Would you kill thousands upon thousands of animals to get a false vaccine that will endanger your child’s life?” After all, THAT is what animal testing really is, since it is unreliable, deadly, and inhumane.



Conclusion-



Animal testing kills approximately 100 million animals, and this does not include all the animals not included by AWA (with the exception of invertebrates), which make up approximately 95% of all tests. It has also endangered human lives and produced faulty results which throw us off track for decades when we could have gotten the correct results much more quickly and without killing so many living things. Thus, animal testing has more cons than pros, making it unacceptable.



Thanks to Cobo for a good debate, and good luck in the next round.


Cobo

Pro

I would like to thank peacefulchoas for the wonderful round/topic/rebuttal and wish him luck in the rest of the debate.

First of all some statistics about animal testing
95% of all lab animals are specially bred lab rats and mice
Non Human Primates account for .25%
dogs and cats .5%
The remanding 4.25% includes rabbits, guinea pigs, woodchucks, pigs, sheep, armadillos, leeches, zebra fish, squid, horseshoe crabs, sea snails and fruit flies
All animals are anathesized(Meaning they can feel nothing)[1]

Ct.1
In order to prove animal testing is still saving lives I will do a simple calculation. If its capitalized that means its a factor that you can change
1.Take the bare MINIMUM of POLIO CASES that were DEADLY in the U.S BEFORE a vaccine was invented
2.Calculate that over a period of time up to the CURRENT date from the DATE of the vaccine(NOT factoring the population influx)

So the bare minimum of the cases is the U.S was 13,000 one year and the vaccine was invented in 1952.
It has been 60 years since the vaccine was made. So that has saved 780,000 people's lives

Not to mention that this was only in the US, and it was a multitude of other factors that you can throw in.

Also, My opponent has also said that animal testing HAS saved lives.
This is still a pro to animal testing simply because those human lives created more human life(Thus affecting and saving more people than the drug intended).

Ct.2

I would like to point out the Con has acknowledged this point as a pro for animal testing.
Also, I would like to state that his analogy of very unreasonable, comparing children to worms is not a great analogy.
Looking outside of that even the analogy is false, a non sequitur at best.

Con's Case
1.Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal's part

When anyone calls something moral or immoral, it brings in humans
Because humans are the only ones that can compare morality and discuss it.(After all we are the ones having this debate aren't we?Not lab rats)

Also a animal cannot be tortured.
Torture by definition "the act of inflicting severe pain as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or an act of cruelty"[2]

The definition of later goes on to say "It is considered to be a violation of human rights"

The reason torture is only applied to humans is because we can measure torture ourselves as one species.
Whether its
"Damn, that looked like it hurt"
"Damn it, Steve that hurt!"

You see, you can do that to an animal because they do not receive pain like we do.

And also, please do not use the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
And with all these new sources and pictures I could not see them becuase they crashed my browser when I opened the links. But I did notice something about one source, the "vegan peace" site.
I would like to point out that most vegan are veganist becuase of ethical reasons[3] have the belief of

"reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose"

Of course they would be against anything to do with animals, This is a bias source.

2.Animal testing is not reliable
I have a question for the con.
Just because the drugs caused deaths, does it actually mean it is animal testing fault?
According to this logic then wouldn't human testing also be at fault?
All of these products were tested by humans after all. You see my opponent is trying to blame animal testing when it could have been other parts of the testing that cause the problems.
My opponent never even said or showed anything about animal testing that would have cause these things directly.

A-A perfect example. And the word "would" seems to indicate that No one knows for sure that CQL caused SMON directly. They merely assume it "would",BUT the article states that this hypothesis is also compatible with "environmental pollution in Japan". Meaning that both together inherently caused this reaction, so the blame can't lie only on Clioquinol but on the environmental pollution. This is also back up by the fact in which the article stated that the only reaction happened in Japan.

So how is animal testing unreliable? It didn't cause anything anywhere else? Maybe it's actually the environmental pollution's fault?

B-Looking at this source, Opren actually wasn't even touched by animals.(I would like to point out that Opren's real name is Benoxaprofen, an Oraflex is the American name) And according to this source[4] all experiments were on humans.
Here are the step that they took of the testing process in the U.S

"In the first step of the process, Lilly tested Benoxaprofen on a handful of healthy human volunteers."

"Phase II of testing involved a larger number of human subjects, including some with minor illnesses"

"Lilly began the third, and largest, phase of the human testing process in 1976. It said more than 2,000 arthritis patients were administered the drug by more than 100 doctors, who reported back to the company on the results."

So this leads us to ask some question?

Are the alternatives really that safe? The con proved actually proved it himself. Now even though my opponent wanted to drop this point(see comments) I just wanted to point this out.

How does this prove animal testing is unreliable? If it's humans that are being testing?

C-Thalidomide
My opponent never actual proves how animal testing causes all the deaths.

His argument stance

"Because a drug was animal tested, and because the drug caused deaths, it means animal testing was directly responsible"

Now even though we animal test in order to observe a drug reaction with a species, doesn't mean animal testing was inherently responsible.

My argument stance

Because a drug was animal tested, no my bad human tested, and the drug cause deaths, doesn't mean animal testing was responsible, There are many factors to account for such as did the manufacture mess with the product, did someone mess with the results, did the scientist not properly record the reactions?"

And with the 92%, that does not nessarily prove that animal testing is unreliable, it just mean that human testing is more difficult than animal testing to pass.

Animal Life vs Human Life
To answer my opponent's question, Yes I would kill 200,000 animals for toothpaste(consider most if not all will be lab rats), but apparently so would the con. In his first speech

"...200,000 animal or so have been killed so I can brush my teeth in safety."

If the con uses toothpaste then he supports animal testing, simply by buying toothpaste.
Never did the con say that he won't use toothpaste because of animal testing.
And he also wants his toothpaste to be safe. So the con themselves is actually in support of animal testing.

He even says because of it he can "brush my teeth in safety".

And also as I explained earlier that particular drug(Opren, Oraflex) did not endanger human lives. Why?
Because it was not even animal tested.

But now that I have answered you questions, I would like you to answer the one that I have
Would you kill a lab rat to save a child?

3.The alternative to animal testing
My opponent says this argument has no value to him at all. I do not know whether to treat this as a drop, but in the comments sectio he stated that I do not have to rebuttal this contention so i won't

Conclusion
We can see that the pro did not even factor in the pros he himself accept in the round, But I will accept all pros and con presented so far into the round.

Con's presented so far
Animal testing is apparently immoral and cruel(Rebuttal earlier)
100 million animal dead(Again specially born and bred lab rats are 95% of this)

Pros presented so far
Saved and is Saving million of animal(Some that Con himself agreed to)
Saved million of human(Con agreed to this as well)
Is saving millions of lives(Proved by calculation and the effect of surviving)

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
PeacefulChaos

Con


This has been a surprisingly hard debate, and I thank Cobo for putting up quite a fight! I would also like say that one or two sources will be accepted this round (since there are some things I cannot refute without a source).

Before beginning, I would simply like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, not all animals are anesthetized [12].

Ct.1

It appears my opponent has forgotten that animal testing simply delayed the vaccine to polio and at the same time killed several people. Therefore, his calculations are not reliable. Furthermore, I wanted to know if animal testing was making any progress or producing treatments for present time diseases. Apparently, this is not the case (as was shown in my third "contention").

Ct.2

I was not comparing children to worms. I was not aware that worms were even used in animal testing. Moving on, this analogy is perfectly viable. This is because the same concept arises: in both situations, you are inflicting pain on those who are at your mercy. We do not experiment on humans without their consent, with several exceptions. Likewise, it is not right to test on animals against their will. My opponent will most likely refute this point by claiming, "Animals cannot give consent and do not have a voice of their own to tell us they do not want to be tested on; thus, it is okay for us to test on them." If that is the case, then let us apply this to another situation.

An old man is incapable of communicating with you (i.e. he cannot talk, write, read, do sign language, etc.), and he has a mental illness, so he cannot understand what you say. However, he can understand very basic commands (similar to a dog). He always helps you around the house and is very nice and gentle. Does this make it okay to test on him like we would with an animal (or any people with mental disabilities)? Of course it does not. Thus, animal testing is also unacceptable.

My opponent will then most likely say, "We don't know if animals don't want to be tested on." However, animals can feel pain (both physical and emotional). They enjoy freedom and do not enjoy getting hurt (as is with most living organisms). We have even created pain anesthetics for animals, which shows they can feel physical pain. Animals can also feel fear (i.e. a dog putting its tail between its feet) and possibly even sadness (i.e. when a mother mourns for her lost cubs). Thus, since animals can feel pain, then they obviously do not want to feel it, which means they do not want to be subjected to testing.

Therefore, animal testing is still not acceptable, because you are inflicting pain/suffering to those who are at your mercy (which are the animals tested on).

Rebuilding-

1.

My opponent attempts to use technicalities in his favor, claiming that killing 100 million animals is not immoral because it does not involve humans. However, it does involve humans. Who do you think kills all these animals and subjects them to testing? The answer is humans, of course. Therefore, it is not right to kill so many animals.

Then my opponent attempts to use more technicalities by saying that inflicting severe pain upon animals, by definition, is not the same as torturing. I am sorry, but this really makes no sense to me. You are still inflicting severe pain upon an innocent, living organism, regardless of your motives.

Then you gave two examples about how we can "measure" torture. Well, animals can do that as well. After all, if you kick a dog in the leg it is going to yelp, is it not? The harder you kick it, the louder it yelps.

Furthermore, you claim animals do not receive pain as we do. Then why do we do psychological tests on animals if they do not receive pain as we do? Does that not mean these tests are unreliable? Let us not forget that, regardless of how animals receive the pain, they can still feel it and do not enjoy it at all.

Lastly, while the people who made the site are biased, I fail to see how the facts presented on the site are biased.

2.

Animal testing is at fault, because it is not reliable enough for us to determine whether a drug is safe to use on humans. After all, it fails 92% of the time, does it not? It seems that there is no coincidence in these recurring failures. Are you implying that 92% of the time scientists did not record the results correctly, or that 92% of the time someone messed with the results? If that is the case, then I have to say that today's scientists are either not the sharpest tools in the shed or they are very untrustworthy. I think the more logical alternative to this is simply that animal testing is not reliable.

To refute my statistics about the 92% (as we will now call it), you said that human clinical trials are harder than animal testing. I think you mean to say they are more reliable than animal testing, since the results animal testing produced were too harmful for humans. Again, this simply proves that animal testing is not reliable for humans. If they cannot pass human clinical trials, then that means they cannot be used in the public without harmful results.

Animal Life vs. Human Life

I would like to point out that approximately 70,000 dogs are killed from animal testing every year in the U.S. alone [13]. Thus, it is likely that a plethora of animals (other than mice or rats) were killed simply so you can brush your teeth, despite the seemingly small percentages. You also say that you are all right with killing 200,000 animals so you can brush your teeth in safety. Following your logic, then it would be okay to kill 200,000 mentally disable people so you can brush your teeth in safety, since they (like the animals) cannot have a say in whether or not they want to be tested on.

Whether or not I agree with animal testing outside of this debate is irrelevant. Even if my toothpaste was safety tested in animals, I still do not like it. If I live in a communist government, does that mean I support it? The answer is no. Likewise, if I use animal tested toothpaste, that does not necessarily mean I support animal testing (especially since I do not know if it has been animal tested on or not).

Before I answer your question, I would like to point out that it is far from reality. We do not kill one lab rat, and then suddenly find a cure. We probably kill several hundred thousand-lab rats, and several thousand dogs, cats, monkeys, etc. in the process.

Anyways, my answer to your question is yes. However, I only say this because it is my nature (and nearly every human's nature) to protect our own species.

I would like to ask you a question, now. This time there will be no natural instinct to protect your own species. Would you kill a baby child to save a middle-aged adult? The baby represents an animal: both cannot say if they want to be killed or not. We only know that both can feel pain. The middle-aged adult represents the human: both have a say in what goes.

Conclusion-

I did not accept pros to animal testing because I only had about three characters left, so sorry about that. Here are both sides to animal testing thus far:

Pros-

• Has saved millions of humans in the past.
• Has saved several million animals.

Cons-

• Produces faulty medicine, endangering human lives.
• Kills approximately 100 million animals every year, making it immoral.
• Inflicts severe suffering to those who are at our mercy.

I thank my opponent for the last time in this debate, and hope he enjoyed it as much as I did.

[12] http://www.dosomething.org...

[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Cobo

Pro

I thank peacefulchoas for this interesting debate.

Because this is a summary round I intend to bring quotes from earlier rounds.

Ct.1 Summary
I would like to label my opponents beginning argument as a non sequiter.
The vaccine technically wasn't delayed, that incident only delayed some testers.
Where in the source does it say it affected Jonas Salk(The creator of the polio vaccine)

The con also did not refute the affecting point. If it has saved lives in the past then technically it is still saving lives

Example
Grandma was saved for polio
She then has ten children(Baby Boomer)
Those ten children have 2 children, apiece.
And so on, and so on.
Imagine if grandma did not recieve the vaccine. That's twenty current lives, already!
So, thus it is still saving lives, based on the effect of the cure.

Also in RD1 I posted a list of present conditions/diseases that don't currently have a vaccine.
The treatment for these diseases and all of our understanding for these diseases came from animal testing.

Diphtheria(Only has treatment)
Diphtheria(Only has treatment)
Measles(No treatment, currently working on it)
Diabetes(Only has treatments)
Asthma(Only has managements)

Look at any medicine that is used today that started from animal testing. And also consider that the current vaccines that were produced by animal testing are STILL being used. Peoples lives are STILL being saved

Ct.2
With my opponent beginning analogy he is making a flawed analogy that runs like this

RD3(The con's words)
"It would be similar to saying that it is acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit the rich ones"
"..Scientists are still doing the same thing: they are inflicting suffering to those who are at there mercy(the animals)."

RD4(The con's words)
"..in both situations, you are inflicting pain on those who are at your mercy."
"We do not experiment on humans without their consent, with several exceptions. Likewise, it is not right to test on animals against their will"

Do you know what an animals will is? Can you read animal minds?
And when most of these animals were born specially for the purpose of being experimented on, how do the know what freedom is?

Also with your next example, you are still comparing humans to animals(Elderly to a dog)
Animal Testing exist solely to help humans and help humans help animals(I will later show how my opponent agrees to this statement)

And again this debate is not about whether animal testing is acceptable, It's about the pros and con's of animal testing.

The con case

1.
First of all about the morality rebuttal, I actually said humans are in the discussion whenever someone talks about morality. Here is the exact words throughout the debate

"First of all the con gives his moral argument based off of what he himself believes, He never actually gives a poll or any feedback from the countless people animal testing has saved."Pro Round 1

"In addition, I did not give a poll or statistic for the people animal testing has saved because this argument has to do with animals, not humans."Con R2

"When anyone calls something moral or immoral, it brings in humans
Because humans are the only ones that can compare morality and discuss it"Pro R2

"My opponent attempts to use technicalities in his favor, claiming that killing 100 million animals is not immoral because it does not involve humans. However, it does involve humans."Con R3

Up to the last round the con and I were following each other correctly, but the con decided to completely flip what I was saying, about anything morality based involving humans. He actually takes my argument point from R2.

And with the definition of torture, I was saying that by definition it can only happen to humans.

Example

Frog Jumping Contest[1]
Definition-Frog jumping is a competitive pastime in which frogs compete to jump certain distances
So by definition a turtle cannot participate in a frog jumping contest, only frogs.

To answer the con on the subject of psychological tests, we do those to determine how the receive pain, not if the receive it like us. No it does not make the test unreliable, but I fail to see point in this argument.

I will discuss sources in the summary

2.
First of, the con completely threw out all of my arguments about his three main drug points about animal testing being unreliable, So in-order to try and make up for not refuting his main points, he decided to expand his 92 percent minor point.

Both of these testing methods are actually reliable by my opponents standards
Because both testing methods are getting the results (Animal Testing with the majority of drugs pass, And Human testing with the majority failing)

Both of these tests get near the same results multiple amounts of time. Now a test would be un-reliable if it got multiple results each time

Example

Testing method 1
Test 1-Pass
Test 2-Fail
Test 3-Pass
Test 4-Fail
Test 5-Pass
Test 6-Fail

Testing method 2
Test 1-Pass
Test 2-Pass
Test 3-Pass
Test 4-Pass
Test 5-Pass
Test 6-Pass

Now, we know which testing method is actually more reliable. Testing method 2 had the most consistent results.
That doesn't mean that they might have been the results that would have benefit the drug or been valid.
So both of these testing methods are actually reliable, since they don't jump around with the results and stay consistent.

Animal Life vs Human Life
In your source it says

"Every year, about 70,000 dogs are tested on in labs in the United States,"
NOT killed

As with the teeth brushing my opponent was merely repeating what I said.
And with my logic and the humans standpoint(Which I will explain later) it's only alright to test on animals to save humans.

Anthropocentrism point
Definition of Anthropocentrism-Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe[2]

This is the center point in today's debate, and the true reason why we animal test.
We are the most important beings in the universe. Thus we try to save ourselves any way we can.
Animal testing is justified, simply if it saves only one person. That's a human being one of the "most significant entities in the universe"

BUT, it's not only human that have this view point, animals have it to.
When a shark eats a fish to feed itself, then the shark just practiced sharkpocentrism
When a lion kills a zebra to feed it's family, then the lion just practiced lionpocentrism.
When a human kills a multitude of rats, then the human just practice anthropocentrism.

It's not bad to try and save your own species, and that's what animal testing is doing.
Other species do it all the time, so why can't we. The con is even for the protection of human being.

"Anyways, my answer to your question is yes. However, I only say this because it is my nature (and nearly every humans nature) to protect our own species."

He says it himself. It is in our nature to protect humanity no matter how high the cost. My opponent is justifying the human race using any means to save themselves(Aka animal testing)

Summary
Today's summary will sum up the main points you should be voting on.

Arguments
Has saved millions of humans in the past(Thus saving more now using the affecting point and the fact that most animal tested vaccines are still used to this date, also con agree to this)
Is saving million(Already explained, con inherently agreed to this)
Has saved and is saving animal lives(Can insert the affecting points and the vaccine points)

Sources
If you just look at the NAMES of my opponent's sources then you can notice most of them are actually biased or getting information from a biased source(In [13] even though the name looks great, it frequently references PETA, a common anti-animal testing group)
I used sites that do not have any specific agenda

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
renji explain your vote.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Just like the old saying goes, "Quality is better than quantity".

I should have a debate on that topic, too.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
more sources doesn't = better sources.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I don't mean to repeat myself, but I said that other sites seem to match up with PETA (as in sites other than PETA itself).
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
That's the thing, being biased means they would have lied about anything in order to get people to buy certain things. That mean they might've made up facts or anything.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I understand now, thanks.

I still have found other sites saying the same thing as PETA, lol. The facts seem to be accurate, as far as I am concerned, whether they want you to buy cruelty-free products or not.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
No, like advocating a movement.
Example, your source 3
At the very end of your article

"In the meantime, you can help animals on both sides of the pond by buying only cruelty-free products. Visit the PETA Living page for lists of companies that do and don't test on animals."
Posted by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Kind of like advertising, then?
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
I mean, they are not article intended to give knowledge on the subject just to further their own political agenda by doing anything possible. Look at the very end of your end of all your peta articles.

and renji really?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
PeacefulChaosCoboTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I found two spelling errors in cobo and one with PeacefulChaos. PeacefulChaos had more relaible and twice as many sources as Cobo. PeacefulChaos had more reliable Arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
PeacefulChaosCoboTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: It is really to close to decide. I wanna vote pro...but con a little too. So, to to impossible for an accidental vote bomb I abstain. Sorry for this have to counter vote bomb kyro's source points, peta is way biased. either way post gazette is more reliable then peta
Vote Placed by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
PeacefulChaosCoboTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty good overall, I was really convinced, though II would have to give Chaos credit for the Sources and I also think that his Grammer and Spelling was just a bit better...
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
PeacefulChaosCoboTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Win goes to Pro for proving that animal testing does save human lives. Mainstream society values human life over animal life so this point is highly valid.