The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Should animal testing be allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,873 times Debate No: 41835
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Animal testing has always been a heavily debated topic, and I'd like to see what the majority of people in the community thinks. I have nothing against it and I will give my arguments in future rounds.

I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.


I thank pro for the opportunity to debate this topic. I will accept the con position and argue against the testing of animals for the benefit of humanity because of two main reasons:
  1. Testing causes significant harm to the animals and usually results in the act of euthanizing the subject(s).
  2. Effective research can be conducted without the experimentation of animals.

I would present more, but I am severely limited in the amount of characters I can submit. I will work with what I am given and plan to present my arguments in full next round.

I thank my opponent for this debate,


Debate Round No. 1


I apologize for the lack of characters one may post, I may extend that in future debates.

Although MORE effective research can be done, animal testing is considered effective. Of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years, 71 Nobel Prices for Medicine were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research ( Also many diseases in the past have been cured through animal testing, including Polio, Smallpox, and gave understanding to other diseases that may find cures in the near future (

Also, animal rights isn't a law of sort ( and is not in effect, and hurting them should not hold a price. For example, If you killed an ant, would that make you a terrible, cruel person? No. (And yes, ants are insects/animals.)

That is my argument for Round 2. I am looking forward to your next argument.


Animal cruelty:

  • There are an estimated 115 million animals used every year for medical research. The vast majority of which are put down at the end. Any alternative would be ineffective as well; releasing domesticated animals into the wild would undoubtedly condemn them to death, and mentally impaired subjects would not operate well as pets. [1]

  • There are also a lack of regulations that criminalize this behavior. A recent case exemplifies this when beagles in New Jersey were left to die after they were abandoned and starved to death after an experiment.[2]


  • Advanced computers can create models of chemicals that allow for adept knowledge of their effects. Live cultures of human tissue would also produce more accurate results.[1]



Debate Round No. 2


Animals used in experiments are divided into two groups, Class A and Class B [1]. While Class A are animals that are picked out from the wild, Class B are bred for the experiment. Class B animals are for the experiment and nothing else. If a human life can be saved it might as well be worth (sometimes) painlessly killing a lab rat made for the experiment, especially since Class B animals are of surplus. Using computers may bring more accurate results but may cost much more, taking considerations of costs. A high-end computer costs about $500,000, and that's a generously cheap one [2]. Using animal testing would either result in about same or cheaper costs.

Along with human medication, pet medication can also be made with animal testing. [3] And there's no excuse to results being accurate, since they would use mice to test mice medicine, dogs for dog medicine, etc. Though people state that animal testing is cruel, it can save not only them but also their beloved pets.


Class B animals will be unnecessary euthanized at the end of the experiment.[2] Born into an industrial labratory, tested, and killed. Sad existence that is. Class A animals are deprived.

"Most animals are packed in a cage-like environment to execute the experiment. In a world where humans are entitled to practice their right to freedom and independent living, it is saddening that animals are at the lab assistant's and the tester's mercy."[3]

"the global cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives, is around 5.75 million animals."[1]

Price should not be a factor if we are dealing with the potential lives of future humans. Also, you did not address the human tissue cultures, therefore I assume you agree with me.

[2] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by CanineSelection 5 years ago
All or almost all animals classified as food are euthanized (beef, pork, poultry etc), most pets are euthanized when they are old or ill, and many millions of abandoned dogs in shelters are euthanized each year

In that regard I don't really have a problem with research animals being euthanized except that the remains of the animals could be put to good use if possible like feed for carnivores in zoos, fertilizer etc... one lab I worked in once used to send the rats to a bird sanctuary to be used to feed eagles and other birds of prey...

If they are classified as a food animal they receive better care to ensure a better product... same with the millions of unwanted shelter animals... classifying them as food would ensure they are better cared for even if they are eventually euthanized... that is my opinion anyway
Posted by CanineSelection 5 years ago
Testing on human tissues wouldn't be appropriate for all types of research, and good luck getting enough people to volunteer for biopsies when they are warranted... I inquired about a study asking for human subjects for muscle biopsies and dietary restrictions for a period of two-four weeks... $300 compensation... they said a lot of people had a problem with the biopsies... at $300 it would be taking advantage of vulnerable people... same with paying people for organ donations... only very poor people with no other income would agree to it... more unethical than testing on animals..

They only test on animals when it can't be done in humans... testing on animals first, then doing clinical trials once it is deemed relatively safe
Posted by Sleezehead 5 years ago
That still doesn't make it 'good.' You're just saying in the positives (HIV) and the negatives.
Posted by Nobodyisright 5 years ago
Animal testing is good. At Caltech they were able to inject mice with something (can't remember) that when the mice are injected with HIV, it has no effect. Mice obviously died from HIV in the process but it is better than testing on a human and them saying "Sorry it didn't work. Now you have HIV" However for cosmetics, those should be tested on humans.
Posted by Xenofloppy 5 years ago
Unfortunately, I have ran out of space to post my sources on Round 3. Here they are:


Sorry for the inconvenience! >.<

- Xenofloppy
Posted by Sleezehead 5 years ago
I mean we're already eating the quite regularly. It's obviously a decent thing to do for humans to show kindness even still to animals. I doubt there's a right or wrong answer here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 5 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: -sigh- I agree strongly with pro. However, I think that Con is winning arguments. When the debate comes down to lives vs. cost then lives are typically going to outweigh. I think that the correct counter argument is that computers cannot successfully model many biological systems (at this point) and are currently incapable of gaining the confidence of the FDA (which is necessary for condoning drugs).
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe Pro had better arguments, however I am voting a tie on this debate due to the small word limit. Con made good arguments which could not all be countered due to word limits and the same happened for Pro. I would like to see a larger debate between the two opponents so I can make a more conclusive decision. Please let me know if you decide to do this debate again so I can follow it.