The Instigator
RacH3ll3
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
animea
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
RacH3ll3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,078 times Debate No: 6918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

RacH3ll3

Pro

First let me start off by defining myself:
animal testing: the use of non human animals in research for purposes of determining the safety of substances.
medicinal: used for the cure of bodily disorders.

"Sara" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer?
It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives.
According to http://altweb.jhsph.edu... Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS.
There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to http://www.ncabr.org...
thank you and I look forward to debating this topic.
animea

Con

Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research.

However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word "only".

First, some definitions

medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine

medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy.

testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment::

all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged.

Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing.

1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1]

2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat.

3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields.

1-http://www.psychology.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RacH3ll3

Pro

Sorry, but I will not have enough time to post my full argument, I have been helping my mother move all week. Thanks

my opponent is debating with me on the word "only" See, I argued," animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses. I should have worded the title better, but moving on.

It is very hard to continue the debate because my opponent and I agree, and I cant find anything wrong with what my opponent says, and I know that I should not say that, but I have a lot to do, and I will say my arguments in the next round. I am sorry and I hope I don't lose votes because of this. Thank you!
animea

Con

Well, as my opponent made no attacks or defenses, I will extend all my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
RacH3ll3

Pro

Okay, luckily I am back and can continue.

my opponent argued that scientists test animal to see how the mind works. You do not have to test animals to see how the mind works. you can simply watch and study them. (not the same thing as testing). my opponent also argued that farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. That is true, but the farmers are testing different methods of raising the animals, not actually testing the animals.

all new medicines are required to be tested by animals. First they must show that the drug is safe, therefore, animals wont get hurt if their tested with medicines that are safe to be tested.
http://www.drhadwentrust.org...

Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.
animea

Con

First, animal testing for mental effects is needed to isolate variables. If we simply watch and study then it will not in a controlled environment so it will be difficult to isolate what variable effects what aspect of the mind.

Second, he dropped my genetic testing argument. We need to conduct genetic testing on animals to best improve the species.

Third, his only argument about farmers testing for yield is that we are testing methods, not the animals themselves. This is false, we test methods ON the animals. With medicine, we are not testing the animal itself, but the effectiveness of the medicine on the animal. There are two ways to view his argument then. One, testing medicine on animals is not the same as animal testing, meaning his entire case is based on a false premise. Or two, testing medicine on animals is the same as animal testing, in which case testing different methods of raising animals is animal testing. Either way, the resolution is false.

In summary, the con only has to prove one scenario where the resolution is false. I provide three. If even one of the three points I bring up stand, then the resolution ought to be negated.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
My vote has been given to con~
Posted by SnowRainandSleet 7 years ago
SnowRainandSleet
like i said it went by the information that was given alright.......
Posted by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
its still about how they debated!
Posted by SnowRainandSleet 8 years ago
SnowRainandSleet
Well i went by what you said not by my opinion. I know what i am talking about. My friends and i debated about this as well. It just happened to be that i know some more information on this.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
I prefer people vote based on who debated better than what their opinion on the matter is.
Posted by SnowRainandSleet 8 years ago
SnowRainandSleet
Either i disagree with the fact so i am going with the negative on this one
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
One could either argue that animal testing should be legal for purposes other than medical or that it shouldn't be done for medical purposes.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dirtbiker0405 7 years ago
dirtbiker0405
RacH3ll3animeaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
RacH3ll3animeaTied
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 
Vote Placed by wlola_23 7 years ago
wlola_23
RacH3ll3animeaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
RacH3ll3animeaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
RacH3ll3animeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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