Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.

I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.

No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. "[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. "[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...

Because it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research. You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals, and i only think it alright to test on rats not endangered species.

should animals be used for scientific research

Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! " But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: "I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. " A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a "tu torque fallacy", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.

Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.

Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing.

Okay, luckily I am back and can continue. my opponent argued that scientists test animal to see how the mind works. You do not have to test animals to see how the mind works. you can simply watch and study them. (not the same thing as testing). my opponent also argued that farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. That is true, but the farmers are testing different methods of raising the animals, not actually testing the animals. all new medicines are required to be tested by animals. First they must show that the drug is safe, therefore, animals wont get hurt if their tested with medicines that are safe to be tested. http://www.drhadwentrust.org... Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.

animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

I feel that Animal Testing, when done humanely, can provide scientists with a number of results that can ultimately affect the lives of countless people. I agree that cruelly testing superfluous products such as cosmetics (not saying cosmetics aren't important, just when it comes to testing on animals) but life-altering medications and products need subjects. However, if human subjects can be found and tested on legally, then by all means, use them. But, no, I do not believe animal testing should be banned.

animal testing should be banned

Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.

animal testing be banned

I would like to start with something to ponder throughout the entire debate; which is more valuable, the life of a human being, or that of an animal such as a primate or mouse. I would also like to clarify that I am against animal testing in the cosmetic industry, and that I am arguing for the biomedical field. I myself have worked in a lab setting (primarily as an intern during my summers as a med student) and can say first hand that the use of animals in testing medical and biomedical inventions is critical to the forward motion of the biomedical field. But don't take my word for it, a poll conducted by the science journal Natura in 2011 of 1,000 biomedical scientists found that "more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." The cost animal life is absolutely justified in the thousands of human lives that could be saved with the knowledge gained from animal testing. Source(s): http://www.prnewswire.com...

Animal testing should be banned

Thank you for acknowledging my argument. Animals in cosmetics research is used to prove the cosmetic products are safe for consumers. There are viable alternatives to animal testing when developing cosmetics even though the United States is largely behind in adopting them. The European Union has already banned animal testing with cosmetics and the UK has made significant progress. With America's strict consumer safety laws it is unlikely that we will adopt alternatives in the near future.

Testing on animals is wrong!

Animal testing is right when used for medical purposes such as testing new drugs used only for medical purposes. Animal testing is a debate topic that is always challenged however, should it be allowed if human lives depend on it. Animal testing has been at the heart of every medical break through for the past decade. But, is it right?

Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes.

The results obtained from animal testing are used to check whether a particular medicine or cosmetic product would have any side-effects on human beings. The body systems of animals are different from those of human beings. Aspirin is widely used for the treatment of fever, pain, inflammation, etc. in human beings. However, this very medicine proves to be toxic for mice. Most experiments are conducted on animals which cannot be a reliable source for predicting results on human beings. http://www.buzzle.com... Not only the effects but its very costly to upkeep these animals. There are many other methods you could use. Animals have hyeart beats just like us, why make them suffer?

Animal testing should be banned.

Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2

Animal Testing for Cosmetics

First let me start off by defining myself: animal testing: the use of non human animals in research for purposes of determining the safety of substances. medicinal: used for the cure of bodily disorders. "Sara" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer? It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives. According to http://altweb.jhsph.edu... Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS. There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to http://www.ncabr.org... thank you and I look forward to debating this topic.

First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them

animal testing should be banned

Animals can be used for medicinal research as they are lesser than humans and it would be moral to test on animals, as they, as such, less than human.

Animals should be used for testing

Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.

Animals should be used for testing

Millions of animals are tortured everyday because of cosmetic companies. Their legs and other bones are broken to test painkillers.. etc... it should be illegal for cosmetic companies to test on animals. Alot of great companies don't test on animals, so it shows you there is another way. Please help stop animal testing.

animal testing

Animal testing has proven to be uneffective and a complete waste of taxpayers money. Most of the time, The test performed on rats and other animals did not relate to human trials at all. In one dramatic case, A test worked perfectly on animals and was authorised for human testing. That test ended up with all of those people in hospital with emergency treatment. I propose an alternative. Instead of testing on animals, Test on humans. If you want a product that works on humans, Test a product on humans. The more dangerous products will be tested on death row inmates. If the product works, Then that is a big leap forward for that product being distributed. If it failed, Then nothing of high value was lost since that person was going to die anyway.

Animal testing

Scientists are finding ways to use pig parts to use for humans when there is a low amount of parts. They are allowed to use the pig parts because they are almost identical to ours. i think it is good, because without animal testing there would be no medical evidence on whats good or bad! i know some people and most people think its rude for scientists to do that..but its also a job for them and lot of times everything works out okay! (:

animal testing

Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?

Animals should be used for Medical Research

Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.

Animal testing should be banned.

Good day, The resolution before us today is Be it resolved that animals should be used for testing. As the only speaker on our team I strongly disagree, Here are a few reasons why. 1. Animals can hurt and feel just as we can how would you like to be covered in chemichales and used for horrible expirements. 2. Animals are a valuable part of our environment and wthout them we will surely decline in environmental help. 3. We are doing it for our own luxury We are tourturing many animals for hand creams,Bath and body products,and many other items for our own convenience. This is unjust and unhumane. 4. We treat animals as if we are less than them. We are all equal in fact humans share 30% of our DNA with lettuce weare all interconnected without bee's which are considered animals pollinate flowers. Without that we would have no food. Torturing an animal is unhumane and unjust. Believeing that this is ok shows how truely corrupted our society actually is. And that is why we strongly oppose

You are half-right. Testing is needed, but it doesn't have to be animal testing. Again, there are computer simulations and other alternate testing methods which work about as well as animal testing, and don't require the ineffective use of animals. I'm far from being with PETA, but if there is an alternate method, it should be used.

Animals should be used for testing

Animals have been repeatedly used for testing such as in biomedical research before applying to humans. Proponents of animal testing would probably say that animal testing enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments. However, I am of the view that animal testing is inhumane and can also yield irrelevant results. Therefore, animal testing should not continue.

This house believes that animal testing should continue.

This includes testing in the medical field, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animals.

Animal Testing should be banned

Should animal testing exist or not? When animals' protectors say absolutely no, other people, such as scientists say yes. It is hard to decide who is right and who is wrong. Using animals for humans' purposes started from the earliest times. Natalie Kustcher, (2010), explains, experiments on anmals existed even in antique times, Greeks and Roman used them for vivisection. After World War II the amount of medical experiments on animals increased enormously. Animals were used for lots of purposes: for medicine, biology, education and training of doctors, for developing new vaccines and drugs, also they were used for cosmetics. This situation caused many debates and controversies. Especially now, when we have various organizations which protect animals, this issue has become a hot topic for discussion. From one point of view people understand that we should care about animals. They say that testing drugs and other things, for human benefits is unethical. From another point of view people like doctors and scientist claim, that animal testing is a very important activity for science, medicine and whole humanity. If to compare who is better to be used to conduct an experiment, of course people will choose animals instead of themselves, even though they realize that animals are also important creatures in our life. However, testing animals for new medicine showed most accurate results. Millions of experiments, which gave different results, were conducted by a great number of scientists. What is interesting, the results of drug testing on animals are recognized as the most accurate. Of course there are some alternative methods which can only predict the reaction, but cannot guarantee human safety. In this case results got from animal researches are the most reliable. Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), gives an example of a successful testing Parkinson's disease on animals, which is have already saved millions of people's lives. Whereas computers cannot give accurate and reliable results. According to Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), animal testing plays a big and important role in medical development in the last two centuries. The proportion of successful results from animal testing is more than 70 %. Due to testing drugs on animals, now we have antibiotics and vaccines that have saved many people. Dr Jane Goodall . (as cited by Simon Festing ) says that, people got used to take all conveniences from life and forget, that all those depend on medical researches on animals. Antibiotics and anesthetics are possible now due to animal testing. As an example the polio vaccine alone saved many lives. In addition, the remedy that now saves thousands of women with breast cancer was developed through testing on mice. Moreover, nowadays treatment and control of diseases and sufferings are possible through animal research. Over 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine on inventing new drugs have involved the use of animals. Even such known and useful drug like aspirin, which controls pain, was created based on animal testing. For instance, before using animals for testing drugs, there was such bad illness like the Thalidomide. This disease infect pregnant women and in the 50's babies were born whether without legs or hands. The treatment for this illness was successfully tested on rats so today it is not a problem . Additionally we must take into account such fact that inventing of useful drugs like insulin, Tetanus vaccines, AIDS treatment are possible owing to experiments on animals. (Jaime Harvey, n. d.).All we know such illness like diabet. And as we know the cure to this disease, especially insulin was invented due to testing on dogs. So nowadays testing drugs on animals has become so usual that people forgot about origin of most remedies. Tanks to animals, currently, we have drugs to treat people and it makes possible to save millions of lives every day, every hour, every second.

Animal testing should be banned

Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research. However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word "only". First, some definitions medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment:: all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged. Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing. 1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1] 2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat. 3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields. 1-http://www.psychology.org...

Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.

The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

Do all animals have the same rights as humans? Some but not all, animal rights activists believe animals have inherent legal and moral rights, just as humans do. According to this viewpoint it is unethical to use animals for any purpose, whether for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or as food. Animal use in testing is a huge controversial issue. Some believe animals have the same rights as humans and should for no reason be used as test subjects for research. Others, including members of medical and scientific communities say it is unethical not to use animals in research because animal experiments can lead to medical discoveries that improve the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health will not improve without animal experimentation. There is of course two sides to this issue. Worldwide, animals are used in numerous experiments which inflict pain and suffering to the animal. The first testing of animals started over one hundred years ago. Since then, animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act took place. This was the start of the animal rights movement. Over the years, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and/or destructive. The ways in which animal activists try to get their message across to the public varies greatly. Some conduct letter-writing campaigns, others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One of these groups is the PETA founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works on a wide range of issues such as biochemical testing, cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse to animals in pet stores, and through hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur, and non-leather footwear. The PETA is not known to be a violent group. Instead it often pulls public stunts. For example three members dressed in rabbit suits and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette head quarters in Boston, Mass. to protest the company"s use of animals in product testing. The stunt was an embarrassment to the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is by no means alone. There are dozens of "rights" groups who pursue a more far-reaching agenda. One of these groups is the ALF, Animal Liberation Front. This group emerged in the United States in the late 1970"s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging more than one hundred labs and farms around the nation. In a world of animal testing there are a wide range of tests. These tests are done for multiple purposes, from finding a cure for a disease to testing the harshness of a shampoo or floor cleaner. Many activists claim that animal testing is not only unethical but also often scientifically unproductive. "There have been some medical advances of course but the pay off is slight. When you"re doing billions of animal experiments, it would be a miracle if there weren"t some developments," says George Cave an animal activist. When Dr. Hamm was told what George Cave said, Hamm came back with a strong argument. He discussed how childhood leukemia, used to be a death sentence but now those kids get to go home. He also discussed Hodgkin"s disease and how it is now a treatable cancer when ten years ago it was also a death sentence. Another argument he stated was how we can treat some types of liver cancer today and the research that got us there was done on animals because it had to be. There are no other alternatives exist that could give us this progress. One species that humans tend to use often in testing because they are most like ourselves is the chimpanzee. They are used in different experiments. Because chimpanzees are more like humans than any other species they are popular subjects for the development of vaccines for prevention of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and onchocerciasis. Chimpanzees are the only nonhuman animal species susceptible to these infections (Prince 115). Animal Activists are against the use of chimpanzees b/c of the decline in the chimpanzee population. In approximately the past ten years the chimpanzee population of Gabon, containing some of the best habitats, was reduced by twenty percent. There is an estimate between four thousand and five thousand chimpanzees that exist worldwide in medical institutions, zoological exhibits, roadside menageries, and entertainment compounds.

animals should stop being used as testing subjects

Many animal welfare groups stand strongly against animal testing claiming that they have rights just like our own, but would any of them actually lay down their life for their pet or favourite zoo animal? And if we did ban animal testing how else would we test our vaccinations and countless other crucial experiments?

Animals should be used for testing

Contenton IV: Animals generally benefit from advances made in animal testing IVA: Animal testing has improved understanding of animals and their welfare. What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood. Contention V: Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly. VA: No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe. In the case of oil and chemical products, the use of animals for testing is required where there is no other way of establishing their safety. Although new testing methods have significantly reduced the number of animals used, animals are still needed for some safety testing. Contention VI: The use of animals in cosmetic testing is appropriate. VIA: The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics. The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety.

It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes

I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research. ) Argument 1: Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer. Argument 2: All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research. Argument 3: Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing. I await my opponent’s response Sources: PETA . http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...

Animal Testing should continue for medical research

There are both practical and moral arguments for animal testing. On the practical side; Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Moral arguments include; Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment. Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything, medical research is a more worthy death. Few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer.

Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.

People say that animal testing is okay because it helps us. But it doesn't really help us anymore. The inner workings of a rat and a human may be similar, but they are no means identical. When it comes to drug discovery and development, these limitations can jeopardize every segment of the pharmaceutical pipeline, from synthesis to prescription. Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has 8 percent chance of being approved form human use. Also, the ultimate crash test dummy has been invented by military scientists and will eventually replace live testing on animals such as pigs which are regularly blown up and dismembered in the search for more lethal mutations hundreds of scientists are making medicines from chemicals found in sea plants and animals. Once scientists find useful chemicals, they can often copy them in a lab without killing any animals. Plus,less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. According to the former scientific executive of Huntington Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5% of the time." Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%

Animal Testing

Granted, the affirmative can provide multiple reasons why animal testing is beneficial and should be around it is important to remember the negative consequences of animal testing must be acknowledged. The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, "...research with animals is misleading." A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways. Furthermore, many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative. Thank you http://www.opposingviews.com...

Animal testing should not be allowed.

I believe that animal testing is unjustified because of the cruelty of these testings. Most of the animals ends up their lives by being injected unsafe medicines into their body, and only a few percentage of them get a 'special privilege' of being euthanized. For instance, the commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. Moreover, some of the 'endangered' species designated by the CITES are used for animal testing, just for fast results and inexpensive prices. It is high time for us to stop this unneccessary, crazy act in the globe.

Animal testing is unjustified.

The 4 main reasons we use animals in testing are: 1. To advance scientific understanding 2. As models to study deisieses 3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment 4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment You can see the descriptions of these reasons here: http://www.animalresearch.info... Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here: http://newsciencejournalism.com... And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it: http://m.huffpost.com...

animal testing.

I disagree. No living being should be at the expense at science unless that being is dead. I don't care because animals don't know whats happening or some animals react different in captivity. How about better yet we test on prisoners or humans who volunteer . Animals shouldn't be at the expense of us because it's not morally right.

My opponent has forfeited the round. If he comes back this next one, I would like it if he responded to my argument. In regards to the comment about what would be non-scientific testing, I believe I can answer that. There is no such thing as non-scientific as technically everything can be said to be "scientific". However, if we're talking about knowledge beneficial to humanity, then I personally consider cosmetic testing to be non-scientific.

Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only

Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.

Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare

I will accept the topic of this debate, I agree to all stated rules and respect that you are looking to improve your persuasive writing. Good luck to you sir, I look forward to having a civilized debate with you.

Should Scientist test products on animals

Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org...

Animals should be used for testing

Animals have also been known to fail. The point being, animals should not be used if there are other options. It's not like using animals is really any more effective than other methods. Other mammals biologically resemble us, but not enough for it to work too efficiently, as my sources have pointed out. Thank you for debating this topic.

Animals should be used for testing

You have a point on the intelligence of animals. However, they are still, despite their accomplishments, lesser than humans. And if the court accepts this, I would like to expand my original point to say that in scientific testing, it would be better for an animal to die than a human, evidence being as this position is the next logical step after my original proposal.

Animals should be used for testing

OK, before I start rebuttling Con's arguments I have to make something clear! :I knew it would happen!! Firstly, do you think I am so naive that I would not think that you would found the website? It's the number 1 result when you google "animal testing pros and cons"and "animal testing cons", the number 2 result when you google "animal testing pros", and the number 8 result when you google"animal testing advantages". It was almost impossible for someone to mke a good research without visiting this site! This is why I gave you the sources!.. Every copied sentence is attached with the link of the site where it was first published! Since, I give the links and admit that these sentences have not been created by me I have no reason to paraphraze them!Secondly, I don't understand why this was such a great deal for you that you could not rebuttle at least one of the arguments I posted. Here are some sites that mention the debate rules- nowhere says that participants must come up with their own arguments. http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw...http://www.entsoc.org...Do you know why? Because the main purpose of debating is to defend your side well in order to persuade the audience! "I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest."In the first place, it IS fair and honest! A debater's arguments should not be prepared based on his/her opponent's level of knowledge. It was not my indebtedness to make arguments easy enough for you but it was you who had to search and post sophisticated ones. Moreover, NO! we would not be left with a non-debte. Contrary, it woud be a very interesting debate! We would both have to rebuttle some sophisticted arguments instead of ordinary ones and it would be great! It would be one of those constructive debates that could help people define their position and gain some knowledge! "I am going to cut this round short as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. "Really? You had more arguments but you didn't post them because you waited for me to post my "genuine" arguments? And when did you expect to post them? In your round 3? Now, about the "genuine" arguments:A debater should collect as many arguments as he/she can in order to defend his/her side! It is impossible to base a whole debate on someone's arguments! Before starting a debate, we all do some research! There no one who uses only his/her own arguments. You cannot ask me not to search and collect arguments and evidence, so I suppose that you want me to paraphraze them. BUT:1) An argument is yours when you are the first to think about it or at least you have come up with it without having heard or read it somewhere.. You cannot claim that an argument is your just because you have paraphrazed it. So, almost all of us use arguments that someone else has though about. And that's what we have to do in order to form an opinion! You cannot define your position in a topic by taking into consideration only your genuine arguments. 2) Given that I have paraphrazed the whole text.. So what? Does anything change? The main idea would remain the same! The only difference would be that I would may have done some mistakes. There are things that only specialized people know and I would not be sure if the paraphrazed text would be correct. Sometimes, a word plays an important role in a text and it could also change the whole meaning. So, since I have given you the sources, why should I have to risk it? So, there was no reason for you to ignore the arguments, let alone to ask me to paraphraze them. If you want to rebuttle something, rebuttle these arguments! Unfortunately, I will not have the chance to rebuttle your rebuttles. And finally, NO! I have not voided my entire previous round by plagiarising. This is wrong! If you had spent a little time to read and compare the 2 texts, maybe you wouldn't have said that! I have done much research and work in order for my round to be completed. I've added and removed many things.. examples: what animal testing offersthe image (found it while checking out a source that the website used too.)"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine (source 6..Sorry, but I had not characters available)The quote at the endHousehold cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every yearand many more things have been added. Now let's start with the rebuttals:"However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. "As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! That we recognize animals' rights and we try to prevent them from suffering! Oh, yeah! I forgot..you have ignored my whole round 2 for some reason.. "Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?'I have to repeat things..Oh gosh! OK, let's get started:We don't grant ourselves at the expense of animals. We just use animals whenever we cannot do something else.. I'm sorry but the only way to save from the HIV and the cancer or save animals from certain diseases we HAVE to use a few animals. Thanks to animal research we are where we are now and a lot of other species have not been extinct. We cannot stop using animals unless we find an alternative way to test drugs. "An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture."I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. If animals were in our shoes, they would do the same. This is how nature works! I also mentioned that :"Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK"This shows that animals kill each other without being menaced. The fact that we're being menaced now proves that in order for some species to become powerful so that they will not be extinct, they have to harm some other species. I never said that we have to torture animals because we are more powerful, but when we're being menaced, we have to find a way to protect ourselves. Please note that we try to harm animals as little as possible despite the fact that we're in danger. " While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today"No, it is. I made a whole paragraph about why animals are necessary. Many diseases that menace our species today cannot be cured by using only alternative research methods. The tretments cannot be found so easilly. They need years of testing and examination. So, yeah, this argument is still appicable."Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?"Go to the last paragraph " But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:" There are a lot of things that humans cannot offer. "except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests"Really? And your well-being? I have proved that animal testing benefits both people and animals. Thanks to medical research many animals have not been extinct. We have a lot of laws to protect them. We try to avoid using animals. What else can we do? Unless we find an alternative method we HAVE to use animals. If you have sth better to propose, do it. We can not quit medical research as we have to find treatments quickly if we don't want to die. Now, about morality:As Con has based all of her arguments on morality, I guess that she is a conscious person who stresses the importance of taking moral values into consideration. To start with, I have to clarify that morality is subjective and every person has differerent moral values. So, you cannot ask me to demonstrate animal testing to be immoral as I can simply answer that "For, me it is moral as I think that we have to use our power against other species" for instance. NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Furthermore, we are not responsible only for our acts but also for our omissions. That means that we have to take into consideration the consequences of conducting animal testing and those of quiting animal testing. Which is more immoral? To use a few animals in order to find a way to face some viruses or to let many people and animals die which can lead to the extinction of many species while we can avoid it?

While I think most people would agree that animal testing should be used to a lesser extent, and be performed as ethically as possible, that's not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a wholesale ban, regardless of the costs and benefits involved. I consider that irresponsible. Certain animal experiments are almost demonstrably unethical, and sometimes even unnecessary. That can't be said about all animal experiments however. We can not do research into malaria if we don't keep mosquitoes. We need to analyze snake venom to create antidotes. You may argue these pursuits are unethical, but it's certainly up for debate. I'm guessing the divisive issue is tests on mammals. I'm in no position to disprove all the biologists, doctors and pharmacists who claim animal testing is viable and useful, and the burden of proof is certainly on any person who wants to make such a claim. Humans are mammals, our muscles and digestive systems are often quite similar as well as our endocrine systems. In my opinion, the breakthroughs that rest on animal experiments speak for themselves. If there are better and cheaper ways, we will surely adopt those instead. People did not enter science because they are sadists. A complete ban on animal testing is not a viable approach, surely plenty of diabetics who are alive because of it would agree. I'm not sure it would have been more ethical to learn how to do kidney transplants or how to place the first pacemakers on humans.

Animal testing should be banned.

I believe that animal testing should continue because if we don't have animals to test on, who can we test on to find new stuff that could be beneficial for the growth in society? Whether you like it or not, it's one of the only ways we can find new types of cures and we could even find cures to many diseases. I agree that sometimes there is a minority of the time where animal testing is used for stuff like makeup, that way I do agree that it shouldn't be used, but if it is used to find new cures and something new that can be beneficial it would be great for our society, and we wouldn't even notice.

Animal Testing.

Well, first of all, thanks for accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals?My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.

Animal Testing

Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)

Animal Testing should be allowed

Testing animals shouldn't be banned. Testing animals helps identify things that are either harmful for humans or helpful for science. Animal testing helps us identify diseases and how animals act. Animals aren't usually killed or tortured during animal testing. It doesn't hurt animals, and it helps humans.

Animal Testing should be banned

Human lives are rarely threatened by final cosmetic products, unless an individual is severely allergic to a topical ingredient in the product, in which case they should avoid it. There is no point to testing products on animals if there is not a possible major risk to the consumer. I am not suggesting the notion that humans stop using cosmetics as a whole. I am arguing that using animals to test cosmetic products is unnecessary. The importance of cosmetics to ones self-esteem on the surface has little relevance to the notion of animal testing, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why this is related to animal testing for cosmetics and define your terms. I will not debate whether the animals are alive or not. Also, I fail to see the direct relevance this has to cosmetic testing on animals, please relate this back to the debate topic.

Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it. Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation: 1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't. 2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans. 3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses. 4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty. 5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss. 6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.

Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons)

The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test. http://www.peta.org...

Animal Testing.

Animal Testing.

First, animal testing for mental effects is needed to isolate variables. If we simply watch and study then it will not in a controlled environment so it will be difficult to isolate what variable effects what aspect of the mind. Second, he dropped my genetic testing argument. We need to conduct genetic testing on animals to best improve the species. Third, his only argument about farmers testing for yield is that we are testing methods, not the animals themselves. This is false, we test methods ON the animals. With medicine, we are not testing the animal itself, but the effectiveness of the medicine on the animal. There are two ways to view his argument then. One, testing medicine on animals is not the same as animal testing, meaning his entire case is based on a false premise. Or two, testing medicine on animals is the same as animal testing, in which case testing different methods of raising animals is animal testing. Either way, the resolution is false. In summary, the con only has to prove one scenario where the resolution is false. I provide three. If even one of the three points I bring up stand, then the resolution ought to be negated.

Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?

Animal Testing should be allowed

Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in the trade. These include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers are reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as bunching. In any case, the demand for animals from all of these sources is increased by the practice of animal testing. An investigation in 2007 highlighted the primate trade from Malayasia and Spain. In February 2008, the High Commission of Malayasia confirmed to the BUAV that a ban on the primate trade would be reinstated following the BUAV investigation.[14]

Animal testing creates a high demand for animals and depletes populations

Yes, but an Ape would work. And the Animal testing is still needed. The Alternative methods usually use single cells, not that good. And I'm pretty sure an experiment wouldn't get passed if it weren't possible. We can't fix all the diseases, but we can try.

Animals should be used for testing

I'm arguing against animal testing because I believe it is totally unnecessary. For one, animals usually are killed after the initial test or live injured for the rest of their lives. Secondly, many tests performed on animals are for materials that never sees approval or public consumption and use. Thirdly, animal testing costs a lot of money. Considering the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with the drug or similar experimental substance, longevity of testing, and the price of animals themselves. Finally, the reaction to the drug/experimental substance in an animal's body is different from the reaction in a human's. Mainly because animals would be in an unnatural environment, they would be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to the potential reaction in a natural environment.

Animal Testing.

You said in your argument that we should only test cosmetics on animals when those cosmetics could harm a persons health. Companies shouldn't be putting harmful substances in their cosmetics in the first place. Later, you said that we'll have to use animals when testing cosmetics until we have a better solution. There are other alternatives to testing on animals. Also, I don't think humans would die if we didn't have animals for cosmetics testing. . http://www.humanesociety.org...

Animal Cosmetics Testing

Ultimately, I agree with you. Realistically, In nowadays, we really needs drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, because there isn't any way to replace animal testing. But animal testing for cosmetics doesn't. They have many ways to commute animal testing. But they are still using it because it's cheap and simple.

animal testing.

I am Con for this debate because I am against animal testing and I believe it should be stopped. Rounds 1) Accepting and presenting our arguments to the case 2) Rebuttal 3) Rebuttal 4) Rebuttal 5) Concluding our arguments. Animal testing is a cruel way of trying to find results that aren't always trustworthy. Whether the testing is drug tests, cosmetic tests, or toxicology tests they are all unnecessary and cruel to the animals. I think I knew way of testing should be considered maybe using humans who volunteer their bodies for the experiments. Mainly people who are very sick and volunteer their bodies so they can help so hopefully they can find a cure for future people who will get that disease or sickness. Humans will also be a more reliable source to test on because animals very different than humans, so if a certain drug works on a mouse that doesn't mean it will work on a human because their bodies react differently to certain diseases and medications. If we test on a human and that drug works then we can be much more certain that it will work on other humans as well.

Animal Testing

The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures. Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments. Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.

Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable

throughout the history, animal testing has played an imperative role in leading to new discoveries and human advantaged. However, many people tend to forget the great numbers of animal have suffered serious damage during the process of those experimentations. So, my point of view is that animal experimentations should be stopped. Using animals is bitter, because they are living creatures like people and feel pain. the are a lot of facts and researches which prove it.

animal testing

I will be arguing against the testing of products on animals and the rules are; 1. Opponent must have a decent vocabulary and a relative experience in debating. 2. NO personal insults 3. Don't muck around, please. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal and conclusion. [Note: I am trying to improve my persuasive writing for high school and my English is relatively mediocre-above average. So please don't go full on me and many of these points made by me may not necessarily mine.]

I actually plan on going into the medical field and tho i haven't started it yet, i have had to write numerous research papers in order to get accepted. Most every day medicine that has been used has tested on animals like flue shots, to diabetic medicine. Plus things like cosmetic test are completely overblown, the reality is that very little cosmetic test are actually done on animals.

Animal testing should be banned.

Of course humans lives have a big value. But nowadays there is a big progress in technology and there are a lot of new innovations. I think people should search for alternatives , because they are too dependant from animals. We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. One more reason to support my point of view, is reduction of animals. The new studies show that each year about 115 million animals in the world used for experimental purposes. Keeping the number of animals used to a minimum is extremely important. As much we use as much we lose. The animals are the essential part of our life. They have played various roles; that of a friend, companion, benefactor, protector, comforter, and more. This world would be a very different place were its sole inhabitants humans

animal testing

animals are under the dominion of man. instead of eating a mouse, we can do testing on it. this is based on the bible, which says man is to have dominion over animals, and based upon human reason, which naturally shows we eat and use animals for utilitarian purposes. it is better we test on animals than people.... we need to do tests one way or the other and this accomplishes that.

animal testing is a good thing

"Animal Experiments". BBC.co.uk. Updated August 17th, 2004 - "Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery". Animal testing should only be conducted where it could potentially save human life. This is the only way in which the intentional harm and destruction of animal lives could be justified.

Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust

New medicines require testing because researchers must measure both the beneficial and the harmful effects of a compound on a whole organism. A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials in humans can take place. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials. Testing on animals aso serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly.

Animal Testing.

What is animal testing? Shell.com - "No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe.

Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly

Cons No Never it should not be allowed and banned. Animal testing is inhumane and cruel to animals. Just because we want to be safe you feed or inject unknown chemicals in them just to see it is safe for us. Some are just for curiosity! When people "test" if products are safe. they force animals to eat it observe if they live or not if they live to treat, they stay there for the rest of their life since birth until with a little chance being rescued. These days people use dog breed beagles not mice. Nether mice or dog, imagine you are being experimented till death in a lab forever. And imagine how much you hated the white coats in maximum ride!

Animal Experiments/Testing

Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings.

animal testing

In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas has also been banned since 1986. The vast majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.

Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities

I think animal testing should be allowed. Animals provide a way for humans to test their new innovative ideas and vaccines. I know that it is inhumane for the animals, however, humans would have to suffer without the animals. You see, society is uneasy about testing a new and experimental treatment first on humans. This possibility of hurting a being we know is conscious and has emotions is TRULY inhumane. Treatments are tested first on animals just so we know that they are safe and effective. Besides, animals also offer models for experimentation that would be impossible to copy in humans. Some species of mice can be genetically modified to be exactly identical so that we can study the effects of two different procedures in mice that will not have different reactions. Without animal experimentation, millions of humans would die and suffer. Many types of lifesaving modern medicine have been created with animal experimentation. When it all boils down, it is either us, or the animals. I choose animals. Also, a VAST majority of all lab experiments use mice, not dogs, cats, are any other household pets. Testing and dogs and such is sometimes approved, but so minuscule that it's hardly even noticeable. I'm not saying that the lives of animals don't matter, I'm saying the lives of humans matter more.

Animal Experiments/Testing

Animal testing has become one of the most controversial topics of the modern world; however, there are many aspects of animal testing that people overlook. Without the use of Animal testing we would not have cures to many of the different diseases that we are able to cure. Many current diseases are cured and treated through the use of animal testing. For instance, Cancer and HIV are common illnesses that have been made treatable through the use of animal testing. Animal testing provides the safety for use of drugs on humans. We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals. Through the use of animal testing, we are able to help reduce the risks of negative effects that the drugs we use can cause to humans. Before drugs go for human trials, they are tested on animals to ensure that they are ready to be tried on humans. This helps to reduce catastrophic effects that these drugs might have on the people who are trying them. The alternatives to animal testing, are not reliable. Through the use of computer engineering and cell cultures, we are able to see the effects to some extent; however, these methods are not as reliable as animal testing. Cell cultures are not as detailed as animal testing. Cell cultures only show the effects to the few cells it is tested on. While if you test in an animal, it shows the effects to the body as a whole. Computer models are useful for a hypothetical sample, but the body consists of many variables and unknowns that computers cannot account for.

Animal Testing

Yes, a lizard would not work, and that's the problem. The point is, no scientific method is perfect, and with numerous diseases encompassing the planet, we can't come close to dealing with all of them. We don't need to waste animal lives to achieve an impossible goal. Alternate methods may not be superior to animal testing, but they aren't inferior either, and they don't involve killing or causing suffering in animals. https://www.rspca.org.uk...

Animals should be used for testing

Actually I disagree with my opponent. Animals aren't the only way to test drugs. The science technology has improved and the scientists in U.S.A have invented CHEMO SYNTHETIC LIVER . Instead of animals we can use this ......liver to test our medicines. over a 100 million animals die each from animal testing in USA. 300 thousand animals die each year in New Zealand. Animal population is going down. Even my opponent agree that we shouldn't kill animals.

animal testing should be banned

I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that "nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research)." A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS " Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS " Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop "microbrains" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, "If you have information on human genes, what"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the "AIDS Cocktail", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS " Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.

The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals.

EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.

Animal research is only used when it’s needed

I look forward to an excellent debate! Thank you Con. Now, according to your conditions, I have added a brief outline of the contentions I will present to you, as of arguing that animals should be used in medical research, if necessary: While minimizing suffering and pain, animals are very useful in medical research. Medical research using animals is a vital part of advancing both humans' and animals' health. Animals are one of the most common reasons for sickness caused in humans. If we stop animal testing the human race would possibly wipe out due to deaths from sickness; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. What if it were your close relative who were sick, would using an animal make any difference? Animals are also killed in the food industry, for food, and the number of animals used in the food industry by far, outweigh the number used in the medical industry. Medical research can’t use any other alternative. There would be many cures not found if we don’t use animal testing. Also, please note, this is a rough outline of the arguments I will present. I may change, add, or not use some of the reasons provided for various reasons (which I don’t know of, as of yet). I do believe that in the next round you will present your arguments in more detail, to which I then rebut on and introduce more arguments. Also, if don't mind me asking, this is the first time I've had a debate where we are to give an outline of the arguments we are going to use? Thank you, and Good luck!

Animal testing for medical research

In my opinion your argument is irrelevant to the topic, we're talking about the cruelty of people because of the act that they are using animals for experimentation; we can really say that the experimentation on modern technology is much more expensive than the expenses on the experimentation of animals to make medicines. I am now going to state my facts. --Argument-- If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself. Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to work hand in hand, and prevent this injustice from happening. We should ensure that animal testing is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort to the animal as possible. If animal testing was to be outlawed, then there would be very little scope of obtaining vital information necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals.

Animal experimetation should be banned around the world

Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.

Animal testing

I think that cosmetic testing on animals is necessary and helpful to the entire human race. I'm not saying it should be used for every cosmetic just ones that could hold a potential risk to human health and until we have a better way of testing cosmetic on something that acts alive but is not alive we will have to make due with animals. if not humans may die.

Animal Cosmetics Testing

I have already understood that medicine needs to be tested somehow before it can be used on humans, but with modern techniques is useless to use animals for that. For instance, nowadays scientists can clone an organ and safety test on that. In addition, I agree that animal testing has a big influence in medicine but I am sure that by the modern technologies we will receive the same result. Moreover, if we look so deeper we may see that there are so many millennial generation around the world claim that modern technologies are much more expensive than animal testing. It indeed consumptions of monetary sum to changeover from old techniques to new ones, but eventually it will be deserving choice of reaching a reliable results in a medicine. In fact, people who are against toward animal experimentation including me, we consider that modern technology is one time investment, while with animal testing you should keep paying for it. I have several arguments such as animals need food, shelter and transportation also need a money.

Honourable and learned opponents. Animal testing is one of the most controversial topics in our generation. Just because animal testing has been going on for several centuries doesn't make it any bit okay. my two arguments will be, the uneccesarry use of animal testing as well as the chance of false results. It's completely necessary to use animals in a lab, partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals. Most of the time these animals are tested on extremely utterly useless things, and very rarely do scientists finds major break throughs and advances medecine. The fact remains that if rodents were dying in a lab for cancer research, and real progress is being done, I'd guarantee most people wouldn't be against it. But the circumstances are not so pretty, and you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances. My next argument is faulty science. If the scientist does find a breakthrough and whatever drug he/she was being tested on animals does end up working, chances are it won't work on a human. Making it once again IRRELEVANT. You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems. By now you should know that 1. The majority of our tests are on unnecessary products, at least not important enough to be used on animals 2. Even the small minority of animals being tested for medical reasons usually end up failing and resulting in a waste of time and not to mention an innocent life. 3. IF by chance the medecine ends up working on the animal, there is no telling whether or not this will work on a human being. Statistically 92/100 drugs that passes animals tests, FAILS in humans

This house would ban animal testing

Experimenting on animals for scientific purposes should not be banned because of several things, such as : 1. There is no such things as rights for animals,that's why scientist have been experimenting on animals. If there is rights for animals that means every human being must be a vegetarian. 2.If scientist don't use animals for experiment on diseases and cures then there's no medicine for such diseases. Imagine one of your family suffer a disease with cure that can't be found because scientists aren't allowed to work on them, Who'd you blame?

Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned

Edythe London, UCLA researcher. "Why I use laboratory animals". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - "[animals] allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans." If animals were not available to use in testing drugs, it would be more difficult to determine the safety of a drug to humans, which would delay the release of potentially life-saving drugs. This could cost human lives.

Animals are important to testing life-saving drugs before they are safe for humans

Hello, Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal in an extremely bestial way. And their only "crime" is not being able to talk. There are many reasons to as why animal testing is without doubly wrong; animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours. If a type of food for example was eaten by a human, would you say that it is harmless to them? An example, cats and dogs are dangerously intolerant to chocolate, if they eat it, they can die. For humans, we indulge in it all the time. Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable. Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don"t work or are dangerous, and of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests

Animal testing should stop

{comment on your opinions for this debate} Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, is a cruel way of testing products/medicines on animals. every year, 150 million animals are burned, crippled and blinded ever year. I believe it should be abolished. i thank whoever takes the debate :)

Animal testing should stop

I believe animal testing is a good thing. The animals are not treated with cruelty at all. The dogs are walked, and the animals are given toys to play with. If we didn't test cosmetics on them, companies can be unknowingly spread all sorts of infections to millions of people, and get sued. Animal testing saves lives each day. For example, lukemia. The survival rate used to be 5%. But they tested therapy on mice, wich raised it to 80%. Tell me what's closer to your heart? The life of a thousand rats, or the life of a thousand humans. I'm against animal cruelty, but this is one of the most important things a rat could do with it's life. Testing in animals has brought enormous advancement in the field of medical research. The cure for rabies and anthrax is thanks to animal testing. It also can lead to cures because of animal testing such as arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella and measles. And treatment to cardiovascular diseases. William Harvey had used dogs to find facts about blood circulation. Then later Stephan Hales discovered the means to measure blood pressure by using hares. Then Jean Poiseulle used dogs to messier blood pressure giving the world the first of it's mercury manometer for measuring blood pressure. None of this would happen without animal testing. I'd also like to emphasis humans suffering through varies diseases such as cancer and HIV can have some relief and not suffer through as much pain. Vaccines for lots of illnesses, antibiotics for infections, and insulin for diabetes have all been discovered thanks to animal testing. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animal. Animal food companies use test animals to see if a little of this or that oil in the diet makes for a healthier coat etc. People against animal testing complain it's killing animals. 95% of research animals are birds, mice, and rats. The same creatures we set out poison for so they do not get into our basements and attics. We eat them! Those are for survival, and so is animal testing.

animal testing.

It is more than true to say that animal testing is dangerous. However, let's think about it this way. According to a study done by the magazine Popular Science, more than 88.7% of tests that were successful or unaffective by animal patients had the opposite or "different" effect on humans. Still not convinced? Doing their own research, The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This clearly proves that what we test on animals are completely innacurate and thereby should not be used. So in this sense, I, myself care for my fellow man as well. Oh and thank you for clearing away that "personal" or sentimental part of this debate because I wasn't going to go much on about animal rights and whatnot. However, I'd like to give the voters this: Correct science is the most humane and safe. Correct science is science used for good and not on those who don't have the ability to say what's right or not. We cannot keep on experimenting on animals that are taken away without notice, to be used for study, or for something that does not benefit their species. How far are we willing to take animal testing as to taking away the whole animal race for our cruel and incorrect tests. (Note: I'm not those crazy animal activists whose working Peta or some crazy organization like that.)

Animal testing does more good than harm

Given that people are going to be subjected to those compounds anyway, it is better to test it on an animal first, in case of any major side effects. After that, it could be tested on political prisoners in China, for instance. Animal testing provides a barrier between people and the really nasty things. It's not perfect, but until a suitable alternative is found, it's the best that can be done. Assume a zero-sum equation. We, as humans, want as much of that metaphorical pie that is resources as possible. Animals are eating up resources. We can either kill and eat them, use them as test animals, get power jollies by exercising power over them (http://www.debate.org...), or take them in as pets. The shorter lifecycle of the animals means that effects come to the fore more quickly than with humans, and corrections can be made. In short, animals are highly expendable and do not even factor into the equation, unless they are in limited supply. Using them as a barrier helps identify side-effects and whatnot before moving over to political prisoner testing, then dissemination into the general public. It may not be reliable, but it's better than nothing.

Animal testing does more good than harm

Antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, heart-bypass surgery - it reads like an A to Z of medical progress. But these major advances have something in common: they were all developed and tested using animals. Animal experimentation is a contentious issue. It works. Some would have you believe there are alternatives for all animal research, or that animal testing is always misleading and unsafe. These are fallacies. Where there are reliable alternatives, of course, we use them - that's what the law demands. Magnetic resonance imaging, computer models and work on isolated tissues and cell cultures can be useful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can. No one chooses to use animals where there is no need. It gives no one any pleasure, and it is time consuming, expensive and - quite rightly - subject to layers of regulation. Yet it is still the best way of finding out what causes disease, and of knowing whether new treatments will be safe and effective. Biologically, we are similar to species such as mice and rats, because we have practically the same set of genes. Their bodies respond to disease and treatments much as ours do. If a genetically modified "purple tomato" can fight cancer in mice, as announced yesterday, it might work for humans, too. This could be the beginning of the cure for cancer.

Hello jlconservative. I agree that animal testing is helpful, I just debated for the sake of debating. You obviously have your facts straight and I will only present facts this time. I will also give you the links to the websites. 1. Ten Fast Facts about Animal Testing The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products. Sufficient existing safety data, as well as in vitro (test tube) alternatives make animal testing for cosmetics and household products unnecessary. Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U.S. laboratories every year. Common animal tests currently used for cosmetics and household products include the Draize eye irritancy test, oral toxicity tests, and skin irritancy tests. Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as "pound seizure"). Animals used in product testing most commonly include guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. Animal subjects can also include cats, ferrets, birds, and nonhuman primates, to name a few. Claims about animal testing on packaging and labels of cosmetics and household products are not regulated. Statements such as "not tested on animals" or "cruelty-free" can be deceptive, and require further inquiry. Shop with confidence and compassion by only purchasing products from companies approved by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) — the Leaping Bunny program. This is the only international standard that ensures that both products and ingredients did not involve new animal testing. Animal testing can occur anywhere within the manufacturing process, including final (or finished) products, ingredient suppliers, associated manufacturers, and contract testing laboratories. Animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in a number of European Union (EU) countries and a complete EU-wide ban is on the way. All of this data is from http://www.api4animals.org... I have more data about the actual animals used. The Animal Welfare Act requires laboratories to report the number of animals used in experiments, but it does not cover mice, rats, and birds (used in some 80 to 95 percent of all experiments). Because these animals are not covered by the act, they remain uncounted, and we can only guess at how many actually suffer and die each year. Many household products and cosmetics companies still pump their products into animals' stomachs, rub them onto their skin, squirt them into their eyes, or force animals to inhale them as aerosol sprays. Charities such as the March of Dimes use donations from private citizens to fund experiments on animals, and the FDA requires all drugs to be tested on animals. However, animals differ from humans significantly, making animal drug tests unreliable and dangerous. New research methods, such as computer models, cell cultures, and human studies are more accurate, less expensive, and much more humane. that is directly from the PETA website, and I suggest reading the Animal Welfare act. I was only using a "personal in the moment" reference when I mentioned my dog. That was uncalled for and most animals that are used are nto covered by the animal welfare act.

Animal Testing

Animal research has played a part in nearly every medical advancement over the past decade. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research. Modern painkillers, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin and many more drugs all relied on animal research in their development. Also it's not just medicine. Many people wear make-up, many people wear hair-styling products etc. All these different products rely on animal testing in the stages of manufacture, without animal testing these products would be unsafe to use. At current, there is no viable alternative which could completely replace animal testing in trials therefore making animal testing essential.

Animal Testing is essential

Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose " that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest " our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22

animals should stop being used as testing subjects

Animals can further our understand of science vastly by experimentation, as well as save millions of lives.. Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl.

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research