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

animal testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/22/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,460 times Debate No: 18431
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Millions of animals are tortured everyday because of cosmetic companies. Their legs and other bones are broken to test painkillers.. etc... it should be illegal for cosmetic companies to test on animals. Alot of great companies don't test on animals, so it shows you there is another way.

Please help stop animal testing.


First, Thank you to my opponent for creating such an interesting and a widely discussed debate.

I will first start of by stating that if I was asked on the spot, I would actually disagree with animal testing - however I do recognise there are a number of benefits which come from animal testing, so on this occasion I will be using all my knowledge to debate for it.

My first point would be, that animal testing does not occur just in cosmetic companies, it also occurs when new medicines are needed to be put on trial - this is the main role in animal testing. Medical research is absolutely vital to help the world continue to progress in the development of health care in this current world, there are a few other methods to animal testing in medicine but these methods usually aren't reliable, accurate or precise. Animal testing is a better option in medicine because you are able to see a physical view of the reactions caused by the medicine, and also a mental/psychological view (changes in the animals behavioural patterns) compared to a different method of medical research, such as using 'plain' cells.

As we can see, if the effects on an animal are dangerous, then using a human for testing definitely would not have been a good idea - for example they could face clinical illness's such as cancer or mental diseases such as schizophrenia, simply as a side effect from taking the drug...If that human was your father, how would you feel that he would be living with an illness for life - simply because they didn't test the "un-safe" drug on animals first.

(Yes humans are in the final stage of medical testing - this is after the drugs are assumed to be safe though.)

My next point is about the Cosmetic industries. Make-up is almost, now 'woven' into the life pattern of a woman, it helps them with insecurity's , makes them feel a lot more confident and aids them when looking for a 'life partner'. Animals are absolutely essential if cosmetic testing is carried out - cells can't look beautiful, or show visual effects (with the naked eye) can they?

It is better for an animal to have some .. shampoo tested on it - yes even in it's eyes, they really have to make sure it won't damage a humans eyes as well. Or would you rather get in the bath/shower..get out some soap, put it on your hands and it turns out to be acidic? Or would you like to put lipstick on before going out, then finding out it makes your lips swollen? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't - this is where animals are needed.

My final point for this round ( I will add more later on ) - is a little thing called "Dominion.

In the bible, God gave humans dominion over the earth - meaning they had control of plants, animals etc. and were able to do what they liked with them - this is why eating meat is not a sin. We can apply dominion to this situation of animal testing, humans have dominion and control over animals so theoretically we should have the right to do whatever we want with them, especially when it comes to maintaining human life.

Also, without animals being killed via medical research - there would be too many homeless animals, which would simply be put down, without having a use, in the UK, Usa , Australia and lots of other places!

Thank you again, opponent, for starting such an interesting debate. I can't wait to hear your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


It is only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their consent. Non-human animals are never able to give such consent. It is therefore never acceptable to test medicines on perfectly healthy animals, even if the treatments are for use on other animals.
The advent of genetic technologies has made possible all sorts of new and horrific acts of animal exploitation, from cloning sheep to creating mutant and hybrid creatures with no dignity or quality of life at all. We should end animal experimentation before things get even worse.
In fact, most animal experiments are done on animals that are nothing like human beings - rats and mice - which undermines the argument that these experiments are a reliable guide to human reactions. Scientifically, as well as morally, most animal experimentation is to be rejected - the reaction of a mouse to a substance is no guide to human reactions. Each species has its own unique physiology. And the more similar an animal is to a human being - e.g. a chimpanzee - the more intelligent and sentient it is, and so the more immoral it is to treat is as a disposable and worthless biological object.
in fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects. Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory.
besides that how would you like to have laundrey deterget clowly and painfully driped onto your eye with out being able to blink it out or getting a paralitic because you try to resist and of you say i woud take one for the team and just do it than lets really do it to you and see if you are a little "squmiry"


Thank you for posting an informative response, now here's my argument:

Firstly, Yes Humans can only be tested on if they give their consent and yes animals do not have that choice. But surely that would support the against side? If an animal clearly does not have the logic to make it's own decisions, speak, work out mathematical problems etc. So humans are rightfully, more powerful than animals, meaning we should be entitled to do what we wish. If you completely disagree with this, then you must disagree with society? In the current UK government - cuts are made left right and centre, no-one gets a say in this because the government are more powerful than the middle and lower class and as we can see the government have Control over us. Just like we have control over animals.

Basically, there's a hierarchy in this world > world leaders at the top > government workers > councillors > upper class > middle class > lower class > animals > plants. (Plants wouldn't technically count) and the item that is to the left of the item on the right, has more power / dominion e.g. the councillors are more powerful than the upper class and everything (but plants) has more power over animals. It's the basic hierarchy in life which we all follow and are accustomed to in society, obviously something which has little or 0 intelligence, remains at the bottom = animals.

Secondly, Cloning can actually benefit people quite a lot. Let's take a cow for an example. We all know cows produce milk which makes cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream etc. and each cow has something slightly different about them e.g. 1 may produce 2 litres more milk per month, 1 may run away when getting ready to be 'milked'. However if a farmer identifies a cow which always has a higher concentration of milk in it's udders , such as 5 litres more every week than the average cow, then to try and get a 'herd' which produces more milk - cloning would easily come in handy here.

It benefits the farmer, who faces less chance of losing money. It benefits the cow has more milk? But it benefits the people and the economy - by providing more food and helping to pour cash flow into the economy. So you can see that cloning isn't always a negative thing.

Thirdly, Many breakthroughs in medicine have occurred from animal testing. To name a few; Paracetamol, Allergy tablets, Ibuprofen, 'stem cell research' + many vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). Also, I remember in 1 incident in .. 1960's? Of a drug called thalidomide (I think) - which was given to pregnant women to stop morning sickness, but a huge error had occurred - the drug was never tested on any female / pregnant animals. So when the babies were born they were deformed e.g. having 3 arms or 2 foreheads. Now stop and look at this situation, 10,000 - 20,000 victims from this drug..simply because it wasn't tested on a pregnant ANIMAL.

What would you rather have? 20,000 babies with defects or 10 animals who will end up with 'problems' and possibly being killed but who will stop 20,000 lives from being ruined.

Finally, I'm pretty sure you don't place laundry detergent in your eyes, and if you did it would probably hurt a lot, so I'm fairly sure that was a bad example to use. You simply don't realise, I guarantee you, that you are wearing a piece of make up now or have before...did it ever hurt you (if you're not allergic), did your eyes start burning, did your teeth start dissolving? No. All because animals were there to protect you from being hurt - I'm pretty sure an animal (if it had a brain as complex as a humans) would feel proud that they're dying to protect another species from pain.

I look forward to your next argument (I may not answer until the next day though - Incredibly tired).
Debate Round No. 2


yes i am weariing makeup ight now but before i buy anything i look to see if t os animal tested on four differnt sites i never wear or use ny product unless it is animal safe even if i am out of shampoo i wont use y sisters i will use my body wash or bubble bath!!!! (my family uses non animal safe products)
Air Wick
Arm & Hammer
Armor All
Bain de Soleil
Blue Buffalo
Christina Aguilera Perfumes
Clean & Clear
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Fresh Step
Green Works
Head & Shoulders
Helena Rubinstein
Herbal Essences
Hugo Boss
Johnson & Johnson
LaRouche Posay
Mary Kay
Mop & Glo
Mr. Clean
Nice n Easy
Old English
Old Spice
S.C. Johnson
Scrubbing Bubbles
Sebastian Professional
Skin ID
Soft & Dri
Spray 'N Wash
Vichy (L'Oreal)
Vidal Sasson
Viktor & Rolf (L'Oreal)
Zest (Procter & Gamble)
shockig isent it! to know that he thing u use daily are eing used to torture animals!


What on earth do you expect me to reply with?

You've simply listed products which have been tested on animals - when I have already stated an argument for cosmetic testing? I'm sure thousands of people wear those products - and they should be glad they were tested on animals, because what if they used it with no previous testing..they could have their eyes burnt on lips swollen, or something else dangerous happen.

I've basically just repeated a small minority of what I've already said. So if you're going to debate over animal testing, I suggest you post a convincing argument.

That's all.
Debate Round No. 3


well i use non-animal tested products and my face has never once been burned off so so there are other ways of testing in fact lets try people testing and start with your family!


Insulting, such a lame method of debating.

"well I use non-animal tested products and my face has never once been burned off so so there are other ways of testing in fact lets try people testing and start with your family!"

First of all, yes there probably are some other methods of testing cosmetics - but these methods won't provide a FULLY visual view of the effects - e.g. You can test medicine on cells, but when it comes to cosmetics - you can't put eyeliner on a cell and decide "Oh yes, it has no swollen lips". Can you? The other methods probably aren't as reliable as animal testing as well.

Second, it is only CHANCE , that your face won't be burnt off - I expect there are many cosmetic products, which have caused damaging effects on people because they weren't tested with effective and accurate methods.

Thirdly, Insulting my family is a poor attempt of offending my feelings, and I suggest you post an informative response in the final round.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 4


paigeteevee forfeited this round.


Considering my opponent has left me with nothing to debate against, here is my final point.

I have already explained that animal testing causes medical advances and breakthroughs, and I managed to find an example of quite a few of these breakthroughs and here are just some of them;

. Monkey's and various other animals were used to help eradicate polio / create a vaccine against it - the vaccine was made available in 1955 after years of testing on animals, and by 1965 it had almost removed polio from the US. In fact the same vaccination 'formula' is still in use today.

. Anaesthetic is definitely a 'comfort blanket' when having an wouldn't want to be awake and see your stomach being cut open would you? Well the testing carried out on rodents, rabbits , cats , dogs and monkey's helped aid the creation of harmless anaesthetics which we still use today!

. In the 20th century, testing on animals has helped many medical advances, such as; Penicillin , Organ Transplants and the Whooping Cough vaccine.

Source =

Also, in regards to some people saying 'Unnecessary Cruelty'. Really? Why don't you buy make up e.g. lipstick before it has been tested on animals, put it on your lips and see what happens. Would you really take the risk.. even if it meant your lip swelling x 3 normal size. 95% of you wouldn't - this is why animals are also important in cosmetic testing. For safety precautions on humans.

I really hope when you vote for this debate, you don't consider personal opinion alone. I am against animal testing if someone asked me 'for or against'. But I can still argue for both sides, like I have done in this debate.

Good luck to my opponent.

* In response to the list of products not tested on you really believe every company tells the truth? *
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vbaculum 5 years ago
Do you have a source for which companies do that quarterexchange? I would imagine this practice would be easy to accomplish, especially with the way the language on the package is sometimes worded ("We don't test on animals [we outsource that]". However, I've never come across a list of companies that have been found to do that.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
This debate was a flop. It doesn't matter if it hasn't already been concluded, so I'm just going to throw out there that many companies that claim they don't conduct animal testing test on animals under different names in foreign countries such as China and use the results to make safe products.
Posted by DmitryC 5 years ago
A good topic, but with 'iffy' (at best) execution on con's side. One thing I'd say to WarrenV is that it wouldn't hurt to put the sources of some of your arguments, specifically that part where you mention medical breakthroughs made possible with animal testing.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
Millions of animals are "tortured" everyday because of cosmetic companies.

"You loose automaticly"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Dont think a real RFD is required here...
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited Pro, insulted him ["so so there are other ways of testing in fact lets try people testing and start with your family!"] and wasted the entire debate: reverting to emotional appeals, establishing a syllogism that Pro used for his own argument [that human dominion over animals justify animal testing--Con should have challenged this, though all she did later on was to post a meaningless exposition on the products she used...]