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

animal testing is a good thing

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 62558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




animals are under the dominion of man. instead of eating a mouse, we can do testing on it. this is based on the bible, which says man is to have dominion over animals, and based upon human reason, which naturally shows we eat and use animals for utilitarian purposes. it is better we test on animals than people.... we need to do tests one way or the other and this accomplishes that.


While it is true that animals are under the dominion of man, animal testing is done half the time because of curiosity and for no reason. Also, no matter how many animal tests are done there is always going to be the first person that has to take this test. Animals are in no way shape for form similar to a person so you cannot compare which will happen to one or the other. Take the chemical "Penicillin" for an example, is fine for rabbits but kills guinea pigs. Also, "Morphine" which is a depressant for humans stimulates goats, cats and horses. The FDA did a research that 92% of the chemicals done through animal testing failed in human testing. The point is, animal testing is useless as a human still has to be the first one to try it and we are just wasting millions of dollars on this.
Debate Round No. 1


con criticizes testing when it's done only for curiosity. we should be arguing about doing it when it's just then, not saying ban it all.

con says it's a waste of time cause not all tests work on both mice and humans. so, that only means the tests dont always work. it dosn't mean they don't do some good, and give us guidance. so we should continue for teh benefit that it does give us.

con gave a bunch of practical point, less about ideology or core values. but, his practical points turned out to be flawed reasons to stop animal testing.


Animal testing-
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops).

Pro can't neither spell nor counter my argument and attempted to point out feeble flaws.

The question is rather generalized as well, it depends on your definition of animal testing. The extent where animal testing is a bad thing needs to be drawn somewhere.

The line should be drawn where it brings harm to the animal itself. As stated before, There will always be the first human who has to take this test no matter what tests are done. You could do a test a million times over and still there will be the first human. Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all. Some animal tests that were pronounced good actually led to deaths of the first human tested. Sure you can say "we learn from this" maybe we shouldn't do it to begin with. It would save 16 billion dollars that could be put to a more practical use, like education and health care.

How about its time for an argument? Or is it because you have no argument? I'll see you in round 3!
Thank you for debating this with me!
Debate Round No. 2


"Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all

you need to cite this. if this were true, maybe you'd begin to have a point. i'd contend most of the time, animal testing is helpful, much better odds than failing ninety five percent of the time.


I am not going to post links to any site where they can find this information because what I say are facts. It was supposed to be 92% but was a error. If you want to see the facts search it up.

I am going to extend my statement because it feels like I am arguing with no one because no one is arguing back. You cannot just keep looking at my statement and finding flaws. It does not make you a debater that would make you an English teacher. Instead you could find facts to counter mine instead of saying "animal testing is helpful." Any person could day this, you need facts and information to back up your statements or else you just look like a fool.

I hope you carry on this information in your future debates.
Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Innerstrength 2 years ago
I think animal testing is a very bad thing.
I put to both pro and con that even though we have the ability to have dominion over animals and creepy things that crawleth does not mean that we should. As with many statements that come out of the bible, it is laced with a superiority complex that totally negates any love for what was supposedly created for us.
I subscribe to the native american (and other indigenous tribes) idea that we are the caretakers of this planet and that includes the insects and animals, are we not also animals?
Another point is that we call ourselves human but are we acting in a humane way by testing on animals? I would also say that the so called animals are behaving more humanely than the humans.
I've never been attacked, denigrated, humiliated or tortured by any animal that is used for testing, have you?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to provide a source for his evidence, although I can confirm it was accurate. That said, Pro didn't really have any strong points, and couldn't counter Con's point.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had some issues with their arguments. But Con conceded that animals are under the "dominion" of humans, and rested his case on the notion that animal testing is worthless 95 (or 92) percent of the time. But when challenged on that figure, Con refused to provide it, claiming Pro should have to look it up. I'm dinging sources for that, too. Con, you have to make your own case, and demanding that OTHERS do your research for you is poor form. I suppose I could have put the point in conduct rather than sources, but this is fundamentally a sourcing issue, that is, that Con REFUSED to provide a source; while neither side sourced, Pro didn't really need anything sourced in her case, while Con definitely did. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.