The Instigator
kyleniel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ArguingPerson123
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Animals should be used for testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
ArguingPerson123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 115171
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

kyleniel

Pro

Animals can be used for medicinal research as they are lesser than humans and it would be moral to test on animals, as they, as such, less than human.
ArguingPerson123

Con

"lesser than humans"- First off, humans are just a more complicated species of animal. You can read this if you don't believe me:
https://io9.gizmodo.com...
http://www.zo.utexas.edu...
https://www.smh.com.au...
Basically, other species are more intelligent and emotional than we tend to believe, and we run on more instinct than we tend to believe.
Second, the animal species we use in these experiments are semi-intelligent mammals. Remember, they also feel pain and, despite not understanding what is going on, will understand pain. Look at this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
https://www.npr.org...
I did not use PETA as a resource, as they exaggerate the facts on most subjects like this.
Debate Round No. 1
kyleniel

Pro

You have a point on the intelligence of animals. However, they are still, despite their accomplishments, lesser than humans. And if the court accepts this, I would like to expand my original point to say that in scientific testing, it would be better for an animal to die than a human, evidence being as this position is the next logical step after my original proposal.
ArguingPerson123

Con

Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard.
https://www.neavs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kyleniel

Pro

A lizard wouldn't work, however, and animal testing is still efficient and necessary.

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...

https://www.listland.com...
ArguingPerson123

Con

Yes, a lizard would not work, and that's the problem. The point is, no scientific method is perfect, and with numerous diseases encompassing the planet, we can't come close to dealing with all of them. We don't need to waste animal lives to achieve an impossible goal. Alternate methods may not be superior to animal testing, but they aren't inferior either, and they don't involve killing or causing suffering in animals.
https://www.rspca.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
kyleniel

Pro

Yes, but an Ape would work. And the Animal testing is still needed. The Alternative methods usually use single cells, not that good. And I'm pretty sure an experiment wouldn't get passed if it weren't possible. We can't fix all the diseases, but we can try.
ArguingPerson123

Con

You are half-right. Testing is needed, but it doesn't have to be animal testing. Again, there are computer simulations and other alternate testing methods which work about as well as animal testing, and don't require the ineffective use of animals. I'm far from being with PETA, but if there is an alternate method, it should be used.
Debate Round No. 4
kyleniel

Pro

Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.
ArguingPerson123

Con

Animals have also been known to fail. The point being, animals should not be used if there are other options. It's not like using animals is really any more effective than other methods. Other mammals biologically resemble us, but not enough for it to work too efficiently, as my sources have pointed out. Thank you for debating this topic.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
kylenielArguingPerson123Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As the instigator, burden of proof lied with Pro, and Pro did not meet the burden in the end. Pro made a good point about animal testing's potential to save human lives at the cost of animal lives, but did not expand on that argument. Con brought up a good point that animals should not be tested on if there are equally if not more efficient alternatives, which Pro did not refute sufficiently. Furthermore, the efficiency of animal testing has been vague throughout the debate, and though Pro consistently claimed its efficiency, Pro didn't really show that animal testing is efficient. Due to this, BOP was not met and Con wins.

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