The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,042 times Debate No: 120419
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)



Animal testing has proven to be uneffective and a complete waste of taxpayers money. Most of the time, The test performed on rats and other animals did not relate to human trials at all. In one dramatic case, A test worked perfectly on animals and was authorised for human testing. That test ended up with all of those people in hospital with emergency treatment.

I propose an alternative. Instead of testing on animals, Test on humans. If you want a product that works on humans, Test a product on humans. The more dangerous products will be tested on death row inmates. If the product works, Then that is a big leap forward for that product being distributed. If it failed, Then nothing of high value was lost since that person was going to die anyway.


Well for a start yes it might not relate to humans and because it worked on as per say rats and not on humans it would only be a small amount of people that it didn"t work and it"s only been a small handful that it hasn"t worked. Most animals they do testing on are rats and smaller animals which there organs and stuff work the same as us humans so most of the time when they want to do testing they do it on smaller animals which will work when they release it but they don"t release it after one test they do multiple test for months and months.

With the fact you should test it on humans, The reason they don"t do it on humans because a person has to be willing to give it to them and people in the prison on death row might not have the current disease that they need for testing which if it"s import like cancer you want to make it quick to find a cure to that more people don"t die. If you have people on death row is takes years sometimes till they get killed so if they finally find a cure they won"t be able to test if it the guy doesn"t have cancer so it defeats the purpose.

Therefore if they test if on rats and smaller animals they can see if it might work, Not to say it will it might then people who get the drug will have to sign a agreement saying there could be side effects during the testing and you could die but that"s where the animals come in so they at least know that yes in some cases it might not be safe but they can test it fries for months to make sure that should not cause any harm.
Debate Round No. 1


It is not a small amount of people it did not work on, The tests done on rats and other animals failed to work on humans over 80% of the time. That means over 80% of research is wasted and the whole process starts again. Because of this, A large amount of money is also wasted because the research was completely useless.

As for finding people to test on. Death row inmates can choose either the death penalty, Or human experimentation. They will be given a short explanation as to how the experiment can benefit society. Either way, They will die. However this system allows for the science industry to move forward significantly as they are able to test products a lot more accurately.

When you stated that the reason they do not test on humans is because the human may not have the disease, The same goes for rats. The scientist gives the rat the disease, Then proceeds to perform experiments on that rat. For humans, The scientist would give the death row inmate the disease in order to start the experiment. Neither the rat or the human needs to already have the disease in order to begin an experiment.

This new procedure may cost more, But the benefit of more accurate results would benefit society dramatically.


For a start I would like I you to find the statistics for the first point that you made since most of the trials that get tested don"t work since they haven"t found the proper drug to work and would not be a large waste of money since if they end up finding a cure to cancer I don"t think testing on an animal would be as bad.

Yes I understand that you can choose your death on death row and they have a choice on what they want done, But if we are looking at Australia you won"t be able to find anyone to kill or who will be willing to take it because we have lots of research labs in Australia but the only thing we can test it on is animals.

But if the scientists gave the disease to an death row inmate then they would have to choose it they might not want to do it, Because as you said they have the right to choose what they want to get done.
Debate Round No. 2


The statistics from my previous statement came from Steve Perrin. He wrote multiple articles about animal testing. A direct quote from one of his article reads, "more than 80% of potential therapeutics fail when tested in people. "

The link for the article can be found here.
https://www. Nature. Com/news/preclinical-research-make-mouse-studies-work-1. 14913

He follows this stating that, "The series of clinical trials for a potential therapy can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. "

The article clearly shows that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on research when only 20% of that research can be used. 80% of those funds are simply washed away and wasted because rats are not humans.

Who thought it would be a good idea to test on animals in order to get results on humans? Rats and humans are two completely different creatures. If you wanted to get results for humans, Test on humans. It is that simple.


The reason you do testing on animals is because they have the same organ structure so most of the time when you test it on animals it works and yes they might not work all the time on humans but that"s why they can get it right the first time.

Well most results come up the exact same just have different affects on different people in my opinion it"s fine to do testing on animals it"s only been done on rats and smaller animals with the same type of organs and blood as humans.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
Well in that case then a more elaborate explanation about how it would have worked in America would have been necessary. For example, The death penalty is not entirely legal in all states. So the explanation would've been necessary. (I didn't count this because Con didn't bring it up. But the fact that he brought up a example of the motion being ineffective in places where the death penalty isn't applied can also be applied in the US as well).

It's just best not to leave contentions unanswered. Even if you believe what Con stated was not relevant to the debate or off topic, It's important that you at least bring it up at some point in your speech. Because in many debating systems around the world the de facto rule is that if a point is left uncontested, No matter how ridiculous that point may sound, It still stands.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago

My arguments were based in America, Not Australia. I however do admit that I should have stated that my statements were based in America as it is one of the main countries of animal research.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
I have just realised that I have put myself in the position of Pro when in reality, I am Con. Sorry if there is any confusion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has mainly won on the contention of proving that animal testing is on the whole ineffective. However for me I feel that the most important statement that countries like Australia which do not have the death penalty cannot allow human testing is an important loophole. This was left fundamentally unanswered by Pro and since he did not make it clear at the start of the debate that there was a particular country that human testing was to be enforced I will assume this topic is being talked about in a general sense. In which case I feel that while Pro has brought up more substance, Con's point about Australia is too big a loophole which cost Pro the debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.