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

Should Animal Testing be normal ?

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: 6/7/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 115141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Animal Testing refers to the method of testing a product on an animal. This is done often by medical, cosmetic and educational institutions at the cost of millions of helpless animals. It causes the deaths of many animals. Moreover, the trials are useless many times. The deaths go to waste. Animal testing is not cheap. It is extremely expensive. It ill-treats the animals and performs unnecessary tests. It is not the main reason for any medical breakthrough. Cosmetic testing on animals results in genetic mutation often for the worse. Many drugs that are successful on animals are useless on humans and human diseases. Hence, It is better, both for animals and humans that animal testing be banned.


Firstly, I want to point out I will be focusing primarily on the medical research performed on animals. I don't necessarily agree with cosmetic companies using animals to test their products.

With that said I wan't to question your statement "the trials are useless many times. The deaths go to waste" I'm very curious where you obtained this information? Because if you were to do any sort of research on the topic you will very, very quickly come to find that thanks to medical research on animals we are able to enjoy such luxuries as:

Blood Transfusions
Organ Transplants
Bypass surgery
Joint replacement
MRI scanning

Those are only SOME breakthroughs thanks to animal research.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro stated the medical breakthroughs that had been achieved Let me just state that for each of those discoveries to be made, 1000s of lab rats and guinea pigs had to die. No doubt their life was useful to countless others too. But now, Allow me to state a few examples of medical research gone wrong
The sleeping pill thalidomide in the 1950s, which caused thousands of babies to be born with severe deformities. The drug was definitely tested on animals before it was released commercially. Another case was that involving the arthritis drug Vioxx, which showed to protect the hearts of mice, yet went on to be the cause of many cardiac arrests.
Many scientists stated that medical accomplishments that used animal testing may still have been made without such procedure. In fact, they said that there is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in attaining such advancements.


You state 'medical examples gone wrong'.. The problem with that argument is that's the very nature of research and experimentation, when things go wrong that information is just as useful as when things go right. I would also appreciate some citations regarding 'many scientists stated that medical accomplishment could me made without testing'

At the end of the day what do we value more? Human life or animal life? Animals are resources, we use them for food, for clothing, for all sorts of things. What is the difference with medical testing? It has already given us so much why stop now? If we don't test on animals, what do we test on? Your entire argument is nullified when you consider what is worth more a human life or an animal life?
Debate Round No. 2


According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and killing by carbon dioxide etc.. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.
It is true that we value human life more than animal life but why torture animals when better alternatives exist , which can be more effective than them


The alternative testing methods (in vitro) are very limited, it does not allow us to study the central nervous system, endocrine system and the immune system among other things and until a time when medicine is advanced enough to not need animals for research, it is unfortunately a necessary evil. There are extremely strict guidelines and regulations in place for treatment of animals used for research, it's not the 1950s anymore. Lab mice for example have a lifespan of 2-3 years if 1000 mice can help even 1 person those are justified odds.

Again, it goes to question which life is more important? We use billions of animals for food each year and that's okay but a few million on research isn't? Also, this research helps the animals too.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by blvsian 3 years ago
I agree with con, can't wait to see where this goes
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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