The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

should schools ban animal dissection?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 51937
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Schools should ban animal dissections because it can teach students to harm the animals. The students may think that it is ok to harm animals by dissecting them. They may not know it, and may continue to do it even after the project is done because they want to keep learning the anatomy of the animal. Second, the sharp tools used to dissect the animals can hurt the students. Most of the time, they like to play with the tools and then end up getting hurt because of it.


Okay, let's be clear here.

People have been killing animals sense there were people. No matter what religion you are a part of, animals were ment to be killed and eaten. Now, you might say, what does eating animals have to do with dissections?


People used to have to hunt animals to survive, and killing animals is hunting. People aren't phsycopaths for killing animals, because killing animals is hardwired into the human mind. FIve hundred years ago, there were no vegans, because if you didn't kill animals (or farm, but farming isn't enough to feed people) you would die. Also, if the students get hurt with the tools, it is nobody's fault but their own. High-schoolers should be able to handle sharp tools, and if not, they are idiots.
Debate Round No. 1


Well did you know that some people take the animals out if others homes? Even if they are taken out from the wild, most of the animals become crushed while being transported here. And since they are taken from the wild each year for schools across the country, the extinction of frogs and other animals is bound to happen. And if the smaller animals start to die out, so will the bigger animals, and it will eventually lead up to us humans.




First off, an ecosystem collapse is the least of our problems.

Second off, a majority of dissected animals are raised to be dissected. And, as you know, species commonly used to be dissected are very common and are nowhere near close to being extinct, simple as that.

It is not inhumane and inethical to kill frogs or any other animal for that matter, save domesticated companions.

These are animals, they were made to be killed, just as all other animals below us. We are at the top of the food chain due to modern technology, therefore we are not eaten. Every other animal is eaten or killed, that's just how it works.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by OliveJuice 7 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Personal Opinion: Was not affected by either argument. Conduct: Pro was more polite and straightforward. Spelling/Grammar: Con's English contained more errors. Arguments: Neither presented remarkable arguments with support. Sources: Neither person had valuable sources.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: since cooldudebro deducted S&G points for one little spelling error, I'll do the same. At one point con spelled sense instead of the word since. Con also started out sentences with words like 'and'. conduct to pro for con's use of the word idiot and general demeanor. pro's arguments were ignored and went un-refuted. Con's arguments didn't seem relevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 7 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Here is RFD. Conduct goes to con because of pro going off-track most of the debate. S/G goes to con also because of one fatal mistake by pro. She wrote ok instead of okay. Sources are tied since no one touched one. It was like poison ivy in this debate. Overall, pro tried to use the morallity to win the debate, but it was not effective Con represented resonable arguments while pro tried to play it on morallity. Overall domination by con.

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