Animal Testing

"I didn't say that rats and mice were slaughtered for food."You did not say that whole phrase entirely, but you said, "these are the same animals that we are killing every day for food.""I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe this was a typo?"My bad. Yeah, it was a typo. No idea how it happened, I meant to say 85% :// You said 95%, so I tried to counter it with a righter source."You cannot argue that just because not all diseases are cured animal testing is useless."I never completely said that it was useless. In some ways, it is utterly useless. What I'm trying to say is that the useless outweighs the useful most of the time. Most of the diseases of cancer are still incurable. Heart, lung, and cancer in the elderly are mostly incurable. Heart disease in the advanced stages are just 0.3% [1], or when people need the treatment the most. Lung cancer in any stage is just 16.3%. I will say it has improved, but barely [2]."Humans are not equivalent to other animals, our thought process is much more advanced."Yes, we are more advanced. But 20x more advanced? Imagine if a rats' thoughts was 20x more advanced. They'd be able to do a ton more than humans. Chimps, who also are tested, know how to use tools. One can only imagine what would happen if their thought train was increased by 20x! So, more advanced? Sure. 20x more advanced? No way."Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in the title, but I specified in the introduction and comments that I meant animal testing for medical purposes only."Yeah, I saw that in the comments about a day ago. But it simple says "animal testing" as the title, and that's what I am debating on. So, therefore, you also have to argue on why it is important on other things that we need. Next time, be more specific. Just a first time error. I did it once, too. No worries :)!"Animal testing exists because we need to know how certain chemicals might react to our own body."Yes, but it is not like we have other options [3]*. For one example, to cross out your argument, a company called "Hµrel [4]" made a 3-d human liver (artificial, of course) that sees what some chemicals disturbs the human body. We don't need animals for that. For some products and drugs, CeeTox [3]* made a test tube to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, etc. This can be used to replace animal testing. Also, animals can't talk to the testers, and neither can the test tube. So it is technically the same."This argument really bothers me. You make it sound as though scientists who test on animals are cold hearted people without mercy, and that anybody who supports animal testing or takes part in it is an animal hater."Maybe I said that wrong. I meant the people in the video were cold-hearted, not all animal testers. I'm sure that some like animals. But I'm saying that some of the ones are like the people in the video. Some may have personal things against animals, although I am not sure about that."Animals are to be killed after an experiment if they are in pain- this is a law too. Would you rather have the animal suffer for days, and then die?"First off, I don't think that law matters, since I am trying to appeal the animal testing act. So they kill animals after testing always. Since we can't really tell that animals feel pain, many animals have probably been killed when they didn't need to be killed. I would rather the animal die, but I don't want them to feel any pain in the first place!"No, you don't know that this is what happens everyday."Do you want me to name all of the arguments YOU don't completely know? But with 100M animals being tested a year in many different facilities, I'm pretty sure this happens every day. "Animals save lives." People take lives.Now there is one argument I really feel I need to add. And here it is.How many are actually used per test?Per test, I went to this link [5] to show us how many animals are used per test.•Skin sanitization: 16 mice or 32 guinea pigs•Eye irritation: 1-3 rabbits•Developmental toxicity (tests for birth defects): 480 rabbits (100 adult females and 480 pups) or 1,300 rats (100 adult females and 1,200 pups). And yet, we still have so many birth defects.• Acute oral toxicity (Determines the amount of a substance that causes half of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is swallowed): 7 rats.You may think a single mice or rat is O.K for animal testing. But when you see how many are put together per each experiment, it just becomes downright wrong.Thank you for the debate so far, good job, and God Bless :)!*I know that this is PETA, but it still a reliable source.[1] https://sites.google.com...[2] http://www.lung.org...[3] http://www.peta.org...[4] http://hurelcorp.com...[5] http://www.humanesociety.org...