azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Animal subjects do not account for human mechanisms either. Chimpanzees are generally considered to be our closest relatives, from a DNA standpoint, at roughly 70% similarity.98%+.We mostly use mice and rats. Get a lot of the same crap we do. You should watch Ratatouille for the reason why. Also, you might want to google "transgenic" and "knockout".it is inaccurate 92% of the time. 92%! That means it is accurate 8% of the time. I could flip a coin and guess whether or not a medicine was safe.This seems made up.We can use stem cells, tissue samples, epidemiological studies, the in-vitro and computer models you mentioned. Those methods are accurate 90% of the time.No. These methods are definitely not accurate 90% of the time. Many of these methods are not even used for direct testing. In vitro and computer models only give starting points for hypothesis. They provide no real value to further understanding. We do use human tissue samples, but they do not carry out active biological processes. Not sure what you mean epidemiological studies? Those are generally just data analysis of population. I am also not sure what you mean by stem cells either. Clone organs to test? That would be step up from in vitro, but still not a living organism.As I already said, many studies already employ alternative methods and take pains to limit the amount of animal testing.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

98%+.70%We mostly use mice and rats. Get a lot of the same crap we do. You should watch Ratatouille for the reason why. Also, you might want to google "transgenic" and "knockout".I understand that we mostly use mice and rats, and why that is true. It doesn't make the tests more accurate. For one, the stress of living in a cage and being tested on results in skewed data. Test subjects tend to be overweight or malnourished, again skewing data. The manifestation of diseases isn't always the same, and the cure isn't always the same.This seems made up.It's not.These methods are definitely not accurate 90% of the timeThe PCRM disagreesThe NEAVS also finds these methods pretty accurateEpidemiological studies are data analyses of the population, which helps us understand the diseases we are fighting against. They are how we linked smoking to cancer and identified AIDS. Here's more on stem cellsLimiting animal testing is definitely a step in the right direction, but we need to keep moving towards eliminating it. There are ways to eliminate it.Gordon Baxter, co-founder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans,” he lamented. “We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included.” With the ability to knock in or knock out any gene in a mouse—which “can’t sue us,” Zerhouni quipped—researchers have over-relied on animal data. “The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem…We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” Even the old director of the NIH doesn't think animal testing works.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

70%Bad study. Not even published in a peer reviewed journal. It was published on a creationist website. They were using it to try and disprove evolution.https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-of-chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/ Basically, instead of comparing the point mutations, they compare each individual chromosome.It's not.Very interesting.The PCRM disagreesThese are LD50 tests. This is entirely different from standard clinical studies. LD50 tests only check for lethal dosage. They do not care about the actual pathways of the substance. The 83% is only limited to LD50 tests. There is no way to apply that to clinical studies of pharmaceuticals.The NEAVS also finds these methods pretty accurateThis mentions LD50s again. We already use tissue samples to test for LD50s.It also mentions allergy and irritant tests which were developed to prevent reduce cosmetic animal testing.None of these can be used for life saving pharmaceuticals. As I said before, there are already laws in place to reduce unnecessary animal testing. There are just certain tests that cannot be be replaced.Here's more on stem cellsThis is the same as tissue samples, but a whole lot more expensive. It would be worth the cost when they can clone entire organs or organ systems in order to test more complex processes.The 9 out of 10 failure rate definitely warrants new testing methods. The problem is, it is still considered unethical to test humans first. The current mindset seems to be, sacrifice 10 mice to save 1 human life. (made up numbers)
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Bad study. That's what I get for not checking a link. I know that there's a better study out there, because we discussed it in my biology class last year, but I can't find it right now. Doesn't matter anyway, because we've basically ended chimp testing anyway.There is no way to apply that to clinical studies of pharmaceuticals.Here's some other tests.The Embryonic Stem Cell Test (EST) is an alternative that can be used to find out if a chemical or drug may harm the developing foetus. In a validation study, the test was found to be 78% accurate, with 100% accuracy at detecting very toxic chemicals, while the animal test can only detect 60% of toxicants.MICRODOSINGMicrodosing is an innovative technique that measures how very small doses of potential new medicines are absorbed, distributed, metabolised and excreted by the human body (in so called ADME studies). These microdoses are radio-labelled, injected into human volunteers and measured (usually in blood samples) using a very sensitive measuring device called an accelerator mass spectrometer. Currently, it is estimated that 40% of drugs fail in human trials because the traditional ADME studies conducted in animals do not accurately predict how the drug would behave in humans. In 2009, international drug regulators (ICH) endorsed the use of microdosing in early clinical trials to improve the speed and safety of drug development.I really like microdosing because it does cover the whole system, in the being that will actually be using the medicine. Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.The computer models can also calculate effects on the overall being or the separate organ systems. It shortchanges results on the cellular level, which can be counteracted by other tests.The 9 out of 10 failure rate definitely warrants new testing methods.The 9 out of 10 failure rate indicates that animal testing does not work! It's a shot in the dark and the researchers hope they won't be sued when it kills humans. Use cell cultures to test the drug on a cellular level, make sure it's probably going to do what its supposed to do. Use computer models and organ chips to test it in systems. Use computer models and microdosing to see if there are adverse effects. Then break out some death row prisoners and some volunteers, and get to testing.Also, we haven't mentioned psychological studies and such, so can we agree there is no need to torture a monkey or a dog to see if abused children still seek love?
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

MICRODOSINGYes. Microdosing has been done for quite a while, but only in the early phases. Early phases always administer sub-therapeutic doses.I was researching the 9 out of 10 statistic and I believe it needs to be given context. At first, I thought it was only considering clinical studies that rely only on animal testing for the early phases, but this is not the case. This statistic is regarding combined failures from phase I to phase IV. Phase 0 and preclinical are before phase I. These include all the testing methods you have listed so far as well as animal testing. The 9 out of 10 failure rate includes alternative methods as well. Most clinical studies utilize many of the methods you have listed as well as animal testing and still end up with a 10% success rate.The failure rate has more to do with the science of pharmacology. It is a crapshoot. We actually understand very little about the big picture. We can only design chemicals to correspond to the basic pathway of a specific target. The only way to see how it responds to the body as a whole is during phase I to phase IV (human testing).
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

It should be noted that in medically related animal experimentation, it is not common for the animal testing to be useful in the end result. Physiological differences between humans, and say, cats means that a disease or a treatment will not behave the same. This is why Thalidomide was put on the market - it was safe and effective on animal test subjects, but was dangerous when used in humans. Another example is the HIV cocktail, which was completely ineffective and even fatal in animals, but very useful in humans.As for cosmetic testing, it is pretty much never just a small rash. The Draize eye test involves immobilizing rabbits in steel cages, dripping chemicals in their eye, not allowing them to use any natural defense mechanisms to remove the chemical, such as rubbing at their eye, and watching for weeks to see how painful it is and how long till they go blind. There's the LD50 test, which means scientists force feed animals chemicals until half of the test subjects die. By that point, all of them are very very ill. And the skin tests? They shave the animal, immobilize it, and inject chemicals into the skin. It's very painful and frankly, quite useless. Consumer good testing is not required by law, and is really to cover the company in case an unintelligent human buys a bottle of drain cleaner, and thinks "Hey, I should drink this!"
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Actually, there are many other alternatives for animal testing, such as computer simulation, skin donation, and dead bodies, which works much better than animal testing and is cheaper than it(according t a recent study, 94% of tests that have passed animal testing have failed to work on humans).
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

You know, I find it interesting that the bigger the creature, the more people care about it. One time a bird hit the windshield of our car and died instantly, my sister cried. Why? How is that different than an insect hitting the windshield and dieing?Think about it.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Of course she cried Jake. First off it's a shock to hit a rather large animal or bird. Perhaps she was frightened by it! I don't necessarily agree that the larger the animal the more people care about it. An insect hitting a windshield is rather noiseless and unnoticeable most times. It is also an expected event, whereas a bird is not.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

I much rather test something on an animal than on a human being. If a product actually IS harmful, it'd be better for an animal to die than a human being. Also, the animals that typically get tested on are animals that have short life spans and fast reproductive cycles, such as rats, which give birth to many rats very quickly. When it comes to medicines that are meant to keep people alive for things like a heart condition, rats and other animals are bred to live shorter lives. This is because the scientists breed them to be more susceptible to the diseases they are trying to treat.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Given the choice between your dog or your mother (or child), who would you choose? I love my cat very much, but I would kill her in an instant to save the life of a loved one. Is animal testing any different?
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Why dont we make animals humans for ONE DAY and humans animals for one day... Then "for animal testers" will change ITS mind????
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

... you obviously have no idea how cruel animals are to one another. They are far crueler than humans are usually even physically capable of being. They eat each other alive amidst wailing and crying, like for hours, eat each other alive from the stomach up. It can take days for the animal to die whilst being gnawed upon.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

"whilst being gnawed upon"lol nicely put But then it makes you think. How cruel is it that I find it funny? One could argue that we don't have need to be cruel and that is why we are not. -Because our intelligence grants us the privilege. But I don't claim to have the knowledge(thankfully) of weather I would have the heart to kill another for food etc. You could theoretically say all but are we not all different? Or is that WHY we have become this intelligent? Does being cruel or brutal stunt progress? I'm sort of rambling now..
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

You sir, made a wrong argument. Technically, we ARE animals. Just highly evolved.
Debate: animal testing
Side: It depends

Well this is sort of a strange question. It really depends on the situation. If they're testing by sticking needles into dogs eyeballs to test for one of the rarest diseases ever known to infect dogs, that's horrible. But if they're testing for a very common disease amongst dogs by taking a blood sample. the nit's fine. You see what I'm saying?-
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Thousands of animals are killed each year for food. Medical research is a far more worthy death.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

But people and animals are different.Sometime the medicine is okay to animals but it is very harmful to people.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Each day animals are killed for food. Rabbit Hutches | Chicken Coops | Dog Kennels
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

it helps scientists make a new discoveries actually in medicine. We are living in quickly development world and people are meeting new illnesses every year and sometimes preparation is not helpful. In this case scientists are researching ways to try treating illnesses as a cancer – disease before what scientists are still powerless. . Anyway I against when testing comes to beauty, trying to see if your make-up will cause an allergic reaction , I think its foolish to harm an animal for that purpose, I saw how they make testing perfume, detergent on animals; they do it without any anesthesia and animals feel a powerful pain and is horrible and shouldn't be done ever! Testing must be for a good reason like finding a cure for cancer and all kinds of different diseases or illnesses
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

animal testing is fine cause if we dont test animals and further our research we will not be able to save lives of others it helps to creat new medicine to cure US humans from aids,leprosy, and more
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Everyone consider this. We love our modern life. Would we be prepared to let cancer kill all of us just to satisfy the needs of animals? Is everyone against animal testing vegan? I dont think so. We kill millons of animals year after year. But not for animal testing, but for food and fur. Anyone who is against animal testing and is not vegan is being hypocritical.Thank you
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

I completely favor animal testing , because day by day our science is progressing with leaps and bounds and for that we need a test subject that whether the medicines that we are creating are effective or not. Those who are claiming that animal testing should be banned should be kind enough to suggest other alternatives.Because if don't test on animals then who should it be ?Humans ?And if the answer is no , then should we stop testing our latest breakthroughs altogether ?
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

HOW ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TEST STUFF? DO WE TEST IT FLOWERS???
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Humans are by far more valuable then any animal. Testing on animals alows you to see the results without harming a human.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

If such tests aren't done on animals who else can you suggest it be performed on? Living beings are incredibly complex and therefore scientists too cant create models which are similar. The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences such as cruelty towards animals. Scientific advancement ,in one way, will also help scientists to create different models on which such testing can be done therefore its for their betterment too. It also should be said that there are more test subjects and controlled environments for experiments with animals.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Animal testing is completely and undeniably wrong in every circumstance. I don't think I need to talk about cosmetics testing; that's just horrible. But medical testing?a) Non-human species react differently than humans. To everything. Their reactions cannot be gauged as an accurate representation of how humans will react. This is completely unnecessary and unhelpful testing.b) So, why test on animals? Why not humans? Is it because animals don't have the same thought process as humans? In that case, why not take human infants, or severely retarded humans? How is it different?
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

It's against our moral standards to test human life retarded or not. That's why we use animals . It 's been effectively used by the scientist for the passed years . We have developed artificial ear for the human deft with the help of animal testing and animal flesh. The artificial ear today can be made by a mouse , as you see if you got a deft brother you wouldn't find ounce of guilt if that animal testing can make your brother hear. This question is actually a question of what to prioritize. Is it either human or animal? And to answer this question. it so senseless for us to use other species than our own species.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Animals have as much right to life as human beingsWhen locked up they suffer tremendous stress.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

i agree that animal testing should be banned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

Why do you agree that animal testing should be banned? You oughtn'y just give your vote than walk off, but give us a reason behind this vote.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

first of all animal testing should be illegal because all of these animals suffer every day just so we can be "pretty" and for our house to be "clean" we kill about 200+ animals a DAY if you do that math thats a hell of a lot of animals a month better yet a year. Just think about all of the tests that are done on animals. The Draize test, studying head trauma and studying severe burns. All of these different tests require harming the animal. WE SHOULDN'T"T LET THAT HAPPEN. I understand that people would rather have animals being tested on then humans just in case the product is dangerous. Most products tested most of the time don't make it to the shelves and that IS a good thing. But all these animals had to die because of that product. They researchers could of used synthetic skin in favor of using animals. So think about it about ever minute 10+ animals have just been tortured and killed. Sad isn't it. =/
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

No worries , if we let animals intercourse as many as they want then problem solved. If you know how many lives has been saved by animal testing then you would be at our side
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Animal testing is morally wrong. Plus when you test on an animal, it is more likely to go endangered. We already have over 100 endangered species. We dont need more.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Well, but animal testing is very cruel. I mean, for example, let's took a white rat. We first pull the tail and make it paralysis. But actually, after pulling it's tail, it can't move for it's whole life like a person in a vegetative state. It is very cruel.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

I do not support animal testing mostly because of the loose restrictions on abuse. Most researchers waste animal resources to gain statistics, not necessarily results! There needs to be more focus on animal husbandry technqiues, and living conditions. Also, most of the things which work for animals, don't work with humans...
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from murder
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

Animal testing destroy the balance of ecological.Look, we have two sides now, one is the problem of population,like aging of population, population explosion,another is endangered animals species. If you think animal testing can protect human? no! it is contradiction.What are the animal testing teach our dependent? Unfriendly!!indifferent!selfish!and violent!
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

I'm so against animal testing that I belong (and give generously) to the Society for Little Animal Tragedies (S.P.L.A.T.) ;)
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

..... That acronym would be S.L.A.T.There's no "P" in the title......Maybe the Society for Poor Little Animal Tragedies.
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

It should have been "prevention." Society for the Prevention of Little Animal Tragedies.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

hehe, okay, that one was funny.
Debate: animal testing
Side: against animal testing

I am absolutely against any testing on dogs and cats. There are other animals that can be used.
Debate: animal testing
Side: It depends

lol,okay, I tend to agree because I like dogs and cats - and turtles and tortoises as well. I don't want them tested either.But just as a side debate, what should be the litmus test of wether an animal can be tested?Should it go by cuteness,intelligence,usefullness,or some combination?For me, I have a personal vendetta against spiders. I kill every one I see, no matter the situation.It's my personal goal to eradicate the world of spiders, and if the very circle of life itself were to crumble for want of that horrid abomination, so be it. A life with spiders is not worth living!But some people actually have them as pets...
Debate: animal testing
Side: for animal testing

About what you said about the litmus test, see my argument on the other side. I think size matters to people.
Debate: animal testing
Side: Use the animal that best mimics man

Sure, I know that people love the strangest creatures and keep some as pets or curiosities. I would think that at least part of the litmus test should be the question of what creature mimics man in the best way so that the test results are somewhat valid. If that animal MUST be a dog or cat then at least let it be those that would be euthanized because of overcrowding in our nations pounds. If we actually were evolved from the monkey or ape it naturally follows that we still may have some connection to them. The species can easily be replenished right from the laboratory or perhaps in the wild. I have a thorough dislike and fear of mice and rats! Are they eligible for such testing? I don't know the answer to that but I do know they were used for years. I simply think testing should be conducted so that it does the best thing for mankind.