The Instigator
ruubby
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

animal expirimentation

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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,359 times Debate No: 66882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

ruubby

Con

Animals Needs to be Heard
"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarian." ( McCartney). Not having animal testing would be unrealistic. But minimizing it could cause no harm. Technology gets better and better every day and could save many lives. Laboratory scientist should cut back on animal testing because it is harmful and deadly for them. By not using that many animals for scientific experiments humans could save more lives and not let animal"s lives to go to waste.26 million animals in the United States are used every year to do research. With that many animals being tested on many of them die or are permanently affected with all the dangerous chemicals that get injected into their bodies. Proponents of animal testing say many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals are very difficult to find. Many of these chemicals are never even approved for humans. At the same time many scientist believe that in order to cure diseases like Alzheimer"s a few animals should die if it is for a greater cause. "Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. But we could still achieve great things without animals being affected.
Equally important, our bodies and animals bodies are different. Something that can be harmful to a rat might not be for humans. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. "Pick any drug you"ve heard of; it was probably tested on by rats. But there is significant room for improvement," (Ericson). Knowing that animals and humans are not perfectly alike humans should not put that many animals lives at risk. However many scientist believe that with a rats body being only 95% different then human that it is worth risking their life if that means getting closer to making it safer for humans by just adjusting a few things. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. But even with all those similarities that doesn"t make it okay to risk their lives just for a lipstick. When humans cut back man should not use animals to be tested on for cosmetics but instead diseases but before they should be researched and for sure that it will not cause that animals excruciating pain or there life.
At the same time technology gets better. "Advanced computer-modeling techniques can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug development and chemical testing" (Clippinger). This makes cutting back on animal testing that much easier. Also computer-models have already started to save millions of animals suffering from deadly chemicals. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace animals. Besides technology there are options such as artificial human skin, which is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.
But even with all these amazing new discoveries the need for animal experimentation will stand. Laboratory scientist might not be able to stop animal testing 100% but they should try to minimize on the amount of animals used. The world is changing every day, and if the future is getting brighter for humans by cutting back, humans could also make it brighter for all the animals as well.
Danielle

Pro

Con writes that decreasing animal testing would not cause any harm. He claims that not many experiments done on animals are useful anyway, and technology could replace the utility of animal testing.

It's untrue that decreasing tests on animals would not cause any harm. Scientists utilize animals in particular because of their physiology. Contrary to Con's claims, robots and other technology are not living beings that can emulate the human experience. Animals are thought to be the closest match in terms of comparing their anatomy to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans [1]. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information from animal research is used to build the models in the first place [2]. Moreover, even the best computers cannot accurately simulate the workings of complex living organs, let alone entire organisms.

Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC [3]. It allows doctors and scientists to develop drugs and other products to help both humans and animals fight disease. Insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and other medicine improves our health and spurs medicinal innovation for the future. It also ensures drugs and other treatments are safe for consumption. While animal lives have been taken, animal and human lives have been saved thanks to animal research. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals [4].

A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed the use of animals in research is essential" [5]. If animals were not used, we would either have to forfeit medical advances, or risk human life instead. Humans have a recognized right to life, whereas animal rights are not universally or even majorly recognized. Only a fraction of the population believes that animals have the right to life to begin with, as evidenced by our consumption of animals for food and retaining animals as pets. Both religious and legal tradition grant human dominion over animals. As it stands, current laws protect against animal abuse and other unnecessary mistreatment or neglect [6].

There are no better alternatives to animal experimentation at the moment. Thank you.


[1] The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, "Conservation & Threats," janegoodall.ca (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
[2] Speaking of Research, "FAQ about Animal Research," speakingofresearch.com (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
[3] http://www.scielo.br...
[4] California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
[5]Daniel Cressey, "Animal Research: Battle Scars," nature.com, Feb. 23, 2011
[6] Rutgers University Laboratory Animal Services, "II. Federal, State And University Laws, Regulations, Guidelines And Policies," las.rutgers.edu (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
Debate Round No. 1
ruubby

Con

ruubby forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited. Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ruubby

Con

ruubby forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the entire debate. Please extend all of my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Paaarriissss 2 years ago
Paaarriissss
lol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
ruubbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: pro. Con forfeited. S&G: pro. Con made a grammatical error and some others right at the start and in the middle. Arguments: pro. She effectively refutes all of cons arguments. Sources: pro. Only pro really, actually cited reliable sources. Also, even though there were some holes to pro's argument, this would have been more obvious if the resolution were "an alternative to animal testing should be found". This way, the argument "there are no better alternatives for animal testing" would be nullified.
Vote Placed by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
ruubbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the resources and the arguments. Con sat idly by and did nothing, try again some other time. Con, don't forfeit, stay in the fight or have the courage to concede to your opponent that they have won.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ruubbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
ruubbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF