The Instigator
68CastImp
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

animal testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,368 times Debate No: 27500
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

68CastImp

Con

NO MORE ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! animal testing is killing hundreds of animals and making them go blind as well. it is unfair to the animals. what did they ever do to us. look at this. http://www.bunspace.com.... i rest my case and now you see why animal testing should be stopped. please, dont be a animal killer and buy products not tested on animals
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

I accept. I don't feel like writing an argument yet, so I'll let my opponent elaborate on his/hers/its before rebutting.
Debate Round No. 1
68CastImp

Con

ok, but i strongly hate animal testing.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

For starters, Con's link is broken (for me, anyway), and it strikes me as probably being an appeal to emotion anyway.

Even though I have plenty of rounds, I might as well write my case now.

Argument:

Contention One: Animal testing of products is beneficial for humans


It is clear that we realize many benefits from animal testing, especially for medicines. The Royal Society argues:

'Humans have benefited immensely from scientific research involving animals, with virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way.' [1]

There is no doubt that we realize great benefits from testing products on animals, as the development of antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, and heart-bypass surgery all involved animals. It is even claimed that 70% of Nobel prizes for medicine were awarded for discoveries that in some way was tested on animals [2].

Without animal testing, there is little doubt that we would not have made much progress medicinally. Since humans have gained so much from animal testing, and the medicines produced from animal testing have saved so many lives and improved quality of life so much, from a purely utilitarian perspective it makes sense to continue animal testing for science.

After all, if you could save a thousands of humans by experimenting on a few animals, wouldn't you?

Contention Two: Animals have no rights

Animals (using the term colloquially, excluding humans) are generally considered to be inherently less valuable by many and most. In fact, there are few who would argue that all nonhumans are deserving of rights. For instance, if you swat a fly that's buzzing around your house, are you morally condemnable? Do you really have any right to turn that bear out of your garage? You might claim it's your property, but how did you get that property? Was it immorally seized from the bear's ancestors? Does the bear in fact have more right to your property than you?

From a nontheist persepctive, you can view rights as a series of contracts:

'The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends. We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth.' [3]

However, we cannot form these contracts with animals. If I say to a tiger that's looking at me hungrily 'Hey, you know what would be cool? If we both decided not to harm each other. That will maximize happiness for the both of us!', that's not going to stop it from gulping me down. Since animals won't agree to not harm us, we're under no obligation to agree not to harm them.

Conclusion:

Since animal testing is beneficial to humans and we have no reason to recognize animal rights, animal testing should continue.

Sources:
1. http://royalsociety.org...;
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;
3. http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
68CastImp

Con

I am against animal testing on both moral and scientific grounds.

Morally, animal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller. Allegedly, this was to see how toxic said weedkiller was. However, it had already been tested on humans, and the dogs were being given 50 times what had been established as a dangerous dose for humans - what possible reason could there have been for this? It is nothing short of torture, just like pouring shampoo into an animal's eyes just to see what happens, or infecting it with horrific diseases like cancer just to see if a potential cure works. I find these sorts of things utterly repugnant.

Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous. Animals react differently to humans to many substances, rendering many tests pointless. For example, a contraceptive called Tamoxifen was once developed which was tested on rats. It worked as intended, and was given to humans. However, it had the opposite effect on women, actually increasing their fertility!

There are many other examples, some of which had much more harmful consequences. You may remember Thalidomide, a drug given to pregnant women to prevent morning sickness. It had been tested on animals and declared safe for humans, but it caused severe deformities in many of the babies born after their mothers had taken it. A couple of years ago a drug called TGN1412 was tested on some human volunteers, and very nearly killed them - they were on life support for some time, and were left with permanent health problems. Prior to being given to these people, this drug had already been tested on monkeys at a dose 500 times stronger than that which was given to the humans, without causing the monkeys any ill effects. Aspirin causes birth defects in cats. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. 6-azauridine, a cancer drug which can be used in humans for long periods, will kill dogs in a few days in even small doses. The list goes on.

My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing - animals are given no choice, they are simply used and discarded like objects. They have as much right to live as we do, and the right to live that life free of pain and misery. As noted philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it, the central question is not "Can they reason?" nor "Can they talk?", but "Can they suffer?" And obviously they can. Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being. Poisoning, shocking, burning, and killing animals is all in a day's work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop:

1. It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.
2. It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.
3. It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.
4. It's archaic. Forward-thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests.
5. The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.
For everyday ways to keep animals out of cruel experiments, see PETA's list of surprising ways to help animals in laboratories.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

While it is possible that my opponent happens to have posted this very same argument across various websites, it is such a change in style that I cannot help but wonder if it is plagiarized [1]. My opponent may work for PETA [2], but I personally am highly skeptical as to the originality of these arguments.

Still, I will counter these arguments anyway.

Con writes '[A]nimal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller.'

One anecdote is hardly sufficient to determine a general pattern.

Con writes 'Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous.'

My opponent has failed to respond to my sourced arguments about all the medicines and techniques developed using animal testing, preferring instead his/her/its own theorizing.

Con writes 'My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing'

Of course products should be tested on humans, but they should be tested on animals first.

Con writes 'Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being.'

Animal testing also helps animals:

'Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia.' [3]

What personally seems more abhorrent to me is to let the far more valuable humans die/suffer over other species. One who doesn't care for his own species is a failure.

Con writes 'It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.'

Why? It helps humans.

Con writes 'It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.'

How does that make it bad science?

Con writes 'It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.'

Bare assertion.

Con writes 'It's archaic.'

Actually, we'd probably still be stuck in the middle ages (medicinally) if we never used animal testing.

Con writes 'The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.'

But we could use a cure for cancer so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.

Conclusion

My opponent has not directly addressed any of my arguments, and has preferred to copy/paste some arguments off the internet. I am very disappointed.

Sources:
Debate Round No. 3
68CastImp

Con

68CastImp forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Con presented a plagiarized argument and never challenged any of my contentions directly.
Debate Round No. 4
68CastImp

Con

68CastImp forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Test 'em animals!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
68CastImpAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
68CastImpAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: Con had the triple crown of forfeit, plagiarism, and bad grammar. So yeah, full sweep for Pro.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
68CastImpAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con. Pro's arguments and rebuttals goes completely unanswered. Clear win to Pro.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
68CastImpAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, also singular examples aren't enough to establish a general precedent. Also, I hate animals.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
68CastImpAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: Sources, arguments, and conduct to Pro for Con's plagiarism and forfeiture.