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

Should animal testing be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mschechtel17 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 100293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I would like to start off with a quote from the Bee movie, "what makes you life more important than his". The woman had told her dad not to kill Gary, the bee, because he wouldn't like it if he was crushed by a human. I think that animal testing should be banned because it is cruel to animals. I know that my opponent will refute this point by saying, "if we can't test on animals, who can we test on. Right now, Technology is rapidly improving and we can use technology to conduct experiments in probably just a few years. If you were asked to go and eat a thought-to-be-poisonous berry, would you say yes, even though you probably would die. That is why animal testing should be banned.
Thank You


Thank you for posting this argument, I accept. To be fair I feel I should offer little background information about myself regarding this topic. I have written a research paper arguing for animal testing, and currently work as an animal care technician for animals that are used in research.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, animal testing puts the life of the animal in danger, and that is cruel towards the animals. I would like you to give me your response if I asked you to eat poison to see if the human body had grown immunity towards it. Chances are you would die. Or be playing games on a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 all day. Chances are you would die. Why is an animal's life more valuable than a human's life.
Thank you


"Why is an animal's life more valuable than a human's life?" I'm going to work under the assumption you meant to ask "Why is a human's life more valuable than an animal's?" The truth?... it depends on whose perspective you look at this question from. A human's life is more valuable than an animal's (in general) because I am a human. I want to ensure the survival of my species first and foremost above all other species. However, If you could speak with a lion and asked it whose life it valued more, a fellow lion or the human, it would say the lion. We can assume this to be true because if it came down to a matter of life and death a lion would kill a human to feed it's family in order to ensure the survival of it's species.

I often liken argument of animal testing to hunting. You say that animal testing puts the life of the animals in danger and that it is cruel towards the animals. That it utterly true and undeniable. But I would ask you, how is the cruelty animals face from being used in research worse or different than the cruelty and suffering an animal faces at the moment it's life is being extinguished by a hunter, whether that hunter be man or another animal? The truth of the situation is that most animals that are used for scientific research are bred into existence for the sole purpose of being used in research, and for the majority of the time that animal is alive it is treated just like any other pet or animal in a zoo.

In round 1 you base your argument off the statement "If you were asked to go and eat a thought-to-be-poisonous berry, would you say yes, even though you probably would die. That is why animal testing should be banned". This shows a misinterpretation of the core fundamentals of science. In addition the statement makes the assumption that researches do not understand the gravity of using live animals in their scientific research, and it's down right insulting. A statement that would more accurately represent what scientists are trying to do would read as "Ok, we are almost certain this berry won't be dangerous to people but we cannot be certain. We need this berry to feed thousands of starving people that would otherwise die without it. Before we feed this berry to those thousands of people and possibly end uo killing them further lets see if other animals can eat it without dying, just to be sure its safe. Ok, all the animals that ate the berry didn't seem to have any negative reaction to it. Now we're almost certain it is safe to feed to those starving people but we are still crossing our fingers that it is safe for people too and it will indeed save the lives of those starving people that eat it".

It's a common misconception that scientists do not have respect for the animals they test on, and that most animals involved in research die as a result of the experiment. It is quite the opposite. Animal's are only used in research as a last resort for the final step of the research to ensure a medical procedure or drug is as safe as possible for people. Like you say, other technology is used in research, but that only gets you so far. If we tried to apply medical technologies to people before it went through the process of animal testing, many people would be suffering instead of animals and the advancement of medical technologies would be almost non-existent. We are decades, if not centuries away from being able to develop medical technologies without the use of animal models. I know this because I am around this culture everyday.

The hard truth that you and other people against animal testing must face is that without it we would not have modern medicine. Everything from surgery techniques to the vaccine for polio was only made possible with the use of animals in research. Without testing on animals large groups of the human population would be susceptible to being wiped out by disease. Furthermore, as technology is refined the suffering animals face in research is minimized and there is a great effort in the scientific community to ensure animals used in research suffer the least amount possible in the duration of their life.

I link the argument back to life and death because even though you do not see it, the majority of research that uses animals to test on is a matter of life and death for the individual human and for our species.

Although I am not religious I understand the statement that "god gave man dominion over the animal kingdom". Instead of suggesting animal testing should be banned, it would be a better effort to minimize the necessity of using animals in research and minimize the animals suffering in that research and this is an effort pushed strongest by the scientific community. Instead of thinking of animal testing as subjecting animals to pointless cruelty in testing we should think of the great sacrifice these animals make for humanity. In reality it is quite noble.
Debate Round No. 2


Nowadays, we have conquered polio. We have conquered most diseases that require animal testing. Also, an animal will think that their lives are more important than ours. Millions of animals are killed per year from animal testing according to PETA. There are not millions of last resort cases. We are following the common assumption that animals lives aren't as important as humans lives. If you were an animal, would you like to be tested on. It is immoral to test on animals because they are not approving it and how can it be morally fair that animals are more important than people. Animals play a huge role to the ecosystem and we mistreat them and test on them to keep ourselves alive, not caring that they are dying.
Thank you
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
A quote from the "Bee Movie." How rich!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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