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

Should animal testing be banned?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ianchang1339 has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/29/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 102297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Hunting and eating animal is just how animals live. For example, lions hunt to survive. However, animal testing is DIFFERENT. Animal testing is not part of human or animal nature. IT IS TORTURE. If you were to be animal tested, having a fifty fifty chance in surviving, you would be freaked out. And don't deny it.

I know that there wouldn't be enough prisoners to test. That's why you hardly see any news about "prisoner testing". BUT, there are good alternatives to animal testing. Unless you are an IDIOT, you would know that there is already an alternative for animal testing which is even happening right now in labs.

Scientists can use human cells to test products or medicine. They than collect the result and closely examine the result on a computer. If you think that animals are more reliable than computers, YOU ARE WRONG. Would you rather rely on animals which have different biological structure to humans or on a human cell collaborated with a smart computer which can calculate and analyze datas faster than humans?


Let me start off by saying that in your own argument, you stated, "you would know that there is already an alternative for animal testing which is even happening right now in labs," yet in the real world animal testing is still happening. There is a reason for that, duh. We use the alternative when we can but we can't always use it. We use it as much as we can, but sometimes we must rely on real animals. So no, I'm not an "IDIOT," I just use common sense. Also, the alternatives can't see if blindness is a side effect for anything, also a number of other things.
Also, we have benefited many animals from animal testing. These include, vaccines for rabies, canine parvovirus, distemper, and feline leukemia virus have kept many animals from contracting these fatal diseases. Treatments for heartworm infestation (a painful and ultimately fatal affliction in dogs), therapies for cholera in hogs, and diagnostic and preventive techniques for brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle are all now available because of animal testing.
Let me ask you, have you ever eaten meat or gelatin (containing animal by-product) in your life? If so, you have no right to say that animal testing is bad. We raise the animals for the purpose, and that's not any different from raising farm animals and then slaughtering them to eat. Let me give you some statistics. Around 88 animals are USED for testing every hour in the US. Well, around 1,027,397 animals are KILLED every hour for food in the US. So don't eve think that you can say that animal testing is bad with what you're doing to animals for food.
I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ianchang1339 3 years ago
The debate for animal testing has started!!

Hope you enjoy ;)
This debate has 2 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.