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

This House Would Ban Animal Testing

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,421 times Debate No: 92000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello everyone. I am here today to propose the motion that this house would ban animal testing. My model is that we will phase out all animal testing over the next ten years while governments, the EU and the UN etc. fund research into new alternative methods.

My first point is that animals have a right not to be harmed. 100 million vertebraes are experimented on around the world each year and unfortunately, not all of them have been treated well. You are probably familiar with the Silver Springs monkeys Case. These were 17 wild-born macaque monkeys from the Philippines who were kept in the Institue of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. From 1981 to 1991, these monkeys had been cut afferent ganglia that supplied sensation to the brain from their arms, then used arm slings to restrain the good arm to train them to use the limbs they could not even feel. The monkeys lived in incredibly filthy conditions for TEN YEARS before exposed to the public.

My second point is that animals are very different from humans and therefore make poor test subjects. It was reported by the Food and Drug Administration that 92% of the drugs and medicine that pass in animal tests, fail in humans. For example, during the 1960s, thalidomide was extensively tested on numerous animals including 11 breeds of rabbits, 15 strains of mice, 8 species of primates, various breeds of cats, dogs and ferrets only to name a few. Altogether, hundreds if not thousands of animals were tested using thalidomide. Thalidomide was a medicine prescribed to pregnant women to reduce morning sickness. Unfortunately, it resulted in huge deformation of the babies' limbs, brain, eyes and other facial features as well as causing blindness, the inability to walk or talk etc. Over 10,000 babies worldwide were effected and few survived. This 'extensive' animal testing which was initially a huge project for scientists had failed to predict any hazards or side effects from thalidomide. I think that because evolution and genetics show that animals and humans differ in profoundly different ways, animal models will never be able to recapitulate what happens in the human condition. I know that some animals for example rats, have a few similarities with the human anatomy, however....we are not all just oversized 70kg rats!

My third point is that due to modern technology and research, there are actually many alternatives to animal testing. Here I only name a few.
-The In Vitro Testing: Scientists and engineers at the Harvard Wyss Institute have invented "organs-on-a-chip" including "lung-on-a-chip" and "gut-on-a-chip". These tIny devices contain human cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics human organs. These chips can be used instead of animals for disease research, drug testing and toxicity testing.
-The In Silico Testing: This is a wide range of sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. Basically, these models can accurately predict how a drug will react in the human body. Referring back to the thalidomide disaster, if the 'In Silico' testing had been used, we could have discovered immediately the dangers of the drug and would have saved so many lives.

In the USA, 97% of medical schools and colleges have already completely replaced the use of animal testing with better alternatives like the ones mentioned. These alternatives are much more effective than animal testing and will reduce the deaths of both animals and humans.

Thank you for reading and I beg you to oppose.

(1st round: main points
2nd round: rebuttal
3rd round: conclusions)


they are just animals, and by testing it on animals we improve the lives of humans, OUR own.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your good but somewhat 'short' point.

In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are "just animals" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be "improving the lives of humans" like you so emphasised in your point.

Now back to my perspective. Animals are not "just animals" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also "improve the lives of humans".

Thank you and I beg you to oppose.


Declan0077 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


To conclude this debate, I would like to state that although animal testing has helped us immensely in the past, just like everything else in life, things have to improve. In the past, we used horse and carts as one of our primary methods of transportation. Nowadays, we have the car. We don't need animal tests anymore and it has come to a time to improve.

Thank you for reading.

Vote Pro.

Sources used throughout debate:


Declan0077 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by missmozart 2 years ago
To corporealbeing:
Thank you for your point.
Testing on animals is risking their lives. Also, as I've already explained in my first argument, animal tests that pass, fail 92% of the time on humans. So not only does banning animal testing and bringing in the better modern alternatives help them, but also "saves human lives" as you said. I support my statement with the thalidomide crisis that occurred in the 1960s (please see debate).
Posted by corporealbeing 2 years ago
I believe animal testing is okay in the right circumstances. For cosmetics, defiantly not. But to test medication that could save human lives is something I could defend.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited