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

Animal testing should be banned

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 35606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Just like humans, animals too have a life, and cutting it short because of our needs is selfish, insensitive and incorrect. Therefore, Animal testing should be banned is a statement I strongly agree with.


I believe that animal testing should not be banned.

| Taking the lives of other creatures for survival is an amoral act |

Consider a case where a cheetah has to consume a gazelle. If we follow Arnav's reasoning, the gazelle has life and hence rights. The cheetah cuts the gazelle"s life short because of its "selfish", "insensitive" and "incorrect" needs. Yet, it is what nature intends it to be - the predator will eat the prey, which will eat other forms of living things in turn.

The purpose of this action is survival and the propagation. It is neither a "right" thing to do, nor a "wrong" thing to do, it just is.
  • In nature, animals need to survive and propagate.
  • A cheetah will eat a gazelle, and a gazelle will eat some other form of living thing.
  • >> Killing other creatures for survival is amoral; it is just how nature is.

| The concept of Rights |

"Rights" is a man-made construct. As a society, we agree on certain fundamental rights which all of us should have, some of which are inviolable. These rights exist and are communally enforced in order to protect our interests and allow for a stable and safe society. It is for reasons of self preservation that we give ourselves rights.

Despite our advances, the need to survive and propagate persists even if it may be in a different form from a cheetah vs. a gazelle. We understand the nature of diseases and viruses, and how rapid they evolve. Animal testing should be permitted; it is merely our form of adapting to the environment.
  • The act of killing another creature for survival is an amoral one.
  • "Rights" is a man-made construct created to protect our interests.
  • If animals have rights, it is only because Man gave it to them.
  • Animals" rights are below that of Man.
  • Man still needs to survive and adapt to nature (i.e. diseases and viruses)
  • >> Man can conduct animal testing, which is a form of survival (amoral act)

Debate Round No. 1


Listen you are not understanding the topic well enough, it is about animal testing not an animal killing an animal for its survival and first of all get you understanding clear it is about us humans should stop testing medicine on animals as if they die on their own its ok but we should not be selfish by testing our medicines, we eat them I agree but atleast we should not test our medicines on them and torture them.


There seems to be a contention regarding the subject of animal testing vs animal killing another for its survival. I shall accepting that perhaps I was not clear in my defense of animal testing above. I wanted to show mainly two prepositions:

P1: Survival is a necessary part of nature; it is amoral if a creature takes a life of another
P2: Conducting animal testing is necessary for survival
C: Therefore, animal testing should be permitted


Arnav agrees that eating animals is okay ("we eat them I agree")- it is a necessary part of survival. To survive means to continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardships. [1]

I brought up killing because I wanted to take the extreme position that humans are permitted to do anything, even up to the point of taking another lay animal's life, provided it is for the reason of survival.

There is no difference between (a) survival from nutrition and (b) survival from deriving drugs quickly enough to combat virus or bacteria ("VB"). Both are necessary for us to continue to live / exist, and the lack of both will put us in danger (re: definition of survival). In both of these cases, it is amoral if we end up killing the animal or subjecting it in a painful situation. (Though we should strive to minimize it) After all, who is to say that a gazelle does not feel "tortured"?


The only major limiting factor in whether we can survive today is how effective we are in combating the attacks of constantly evolving VB. VB such as the gram-positive bacteria have evolved resistance to drugs we develop to protect ourselves. [2]

The extent of how well we survive is dependent solely on how fast we are able to come up with new drugs to combat the threat of VB attacks. We need animal testing.


Nothing wrong; it shouldn't be banned.


Debate Round No. 2


Arnav_Murli forfeited this round.


Given that my opponent has ceded his round, I shall conclude this debate by saying that animal testing should not be banned because it's Man's means of adapting to nature and surviving. Thank you for the opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by alextangfastic 5 years ago
Without animal testing many people you know would probably have died in your live time or never lived.

Once something like that has happened to someone close to you, then you will realize the importance of health

Animals do not have the imagination that lets them for see pain and suffering the same way we do
No votes have been placed for this debate.