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

Did you sign Stop Vivisection petition?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: People
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 40073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Hey, guys.
So I was first brought here because of my religion arguing issues, but then as a active fighter for animal rights was thrilled to see some topics about that here too.
I am new here, so first, greetings to all.

Okay, now to the 'thing'
I'm sure you have talked about it on, about the campaign called STOP VIVISECTION, where us, activists were trying to reach 1.000.000 signs to stop animal testing. We were collecting signs here on the following link:

So I wanna know,

have you signed it?
if not, why not?
If you haven't seen the petition, would you signed it, if yes/not, why?

Thank you for your answers! ;) xoxo, Mrs. Artpop.


Assuming this debate is on the topic of animal testing, vivisection is defined as:

"The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research." (1)

I will be arguing in favor of the use of animals for medicinal and scientific research.

Good luck, and may the best man win.

Debate Round No. 1


Sure then, deffendor, could you please tell me why on earth would you defend that kind of criminal? Over 500.000 per year die just because of vivsection that happens in the laboratories, in 70% without anastetics!

And afterall, it's even called bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans AND, 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.

Why should we still do that ? We're in the 21th century for God's sake.


Thank you, Sir, and welcome to DDO.

I will begin with refutations.


The development of alternatives to animal testing is encouraging and, if viable, would offer an excellent replacement for experiments on creatures. However, at this point in time, these solutions are in very early stages and cannot even begin to capture the intricacies of so much as a single cell. (1) With that said, given the inaccuracy and instability of these alternatives at the moment, that leaves very few options. These include not testing medicine, not creating medicine, or simply testing it on humans without preliminary examination. All of these are inadequate, and until superior technology is developed, animal testing remains the ideal option.

Animal testing, hence its name, has given rise to an incredible amount of cures for previously "un-curable" ailments. These include: (2)

Small pox
AIDS Vaccine
Alzheimer Therapy

The list goes on, including many types of transplants and transfusions, including heart transfusion. (3) Additionally, hundreds of animal medicines and therapies have been discovered through tests on the very animal benefiting.

Similarity of Animals and Humans

Despite the opposition's massive exploitation of the difference between humans and animals, they are in reality very similar. Monkeys, for example, our closest relative, shares 99% of the genes with humans. This number of other, seemingly unrelated animals, are equally impressive, with most rodents sharing more than 50% of their genes with humans.

This point is commonly brought up among animal-rights activists, and that is the idea that animals have equal, or a least some, right to live compared to the humans to which the animal's suffering might benefit. There are two reasons why animals are far inferior on a moral level.

1. Inability to think ahead. Humans are planners, for both the near and far future, and can not only imagine, but eagerly anticipate, future events and activities. Animals do not, and simply work off instinct, making their immediate loss far less tragic.

2. No fear of death. Animals, again unlike humans, cannot visualize or understand their passing. They have no ability to fear their eventual destruction, nor expect anything like it beyond vague instinct.

I'll begin with this. I look forward to my opponent's next entry.

Debate Round No. 2


Look, I understand you think that because of animals, we've got many medicine cures. And I agree with you on that one.

I just do not support cruel VIVISECTION, and what they do to animals because of cosmetics.

Some big companys, such as AVON COSMETICS, who are very successful, don't do animal testing.
That's all I am saying. I hope you agree on me with that one.
Animals are really hurting.


I would say that using animals for cosmetics is wrong, and I appreciate the fact that Avon realizes this. I feel for your position, but also believe that humans are more important. Hopefully superior alternatives will be developed soon. Good luck on DDO!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Artpop 5 years ago
Hello, dear Nzrsaa.
First of all, testing is cruel and not always necessary. The disgusting human rise is doing the testing which is in 70% cases not even done under anesthetics. They are vivisected (cutter alive).
Posted by Nzrsaa 5 years ago
So how are products going to be deemed safe for humans?
No votes have been placed for this debate.